THE SANITARY PROSECUTIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2438, 1 March 1909, Page 6

THE SANITARY PROSECUTIONS.

IiKSERYK!) JUDGMENTS DELIV-

ERED

At the Magistrate’s Court on 'Saturday morning, Mr. W. A. Barton', S.M., delivered his reserved judgment in the cases heard on the. previous Jay regarding proper receptacles for rubbish. The first judgment was in the case against J. A. Lucas, licensee of the Coronation Hotel, and his Worship said: — *‘T'he defendant is charged for that lie on the 15th day of February, 1909, at Gisborne, being the occupier of premises in the Borough of Gisborne, did neglect to provide, keep, and .maintain upon the said premises a properly 4j constructed receptacle , for holding house refuse and rubbish contrary to section 17 of part XV. of tha by-laws of the Borough of Gisborne. It is proved that the defendant on the date in question had a receptacle on his premises which was constructed oi brick, and the evidence shows tliat bricks absorb moisture, and further that- it is not capable of being moved. It is contended by Mr. Nolan, counsel for the defendant, tliat the evidence discloses no offence. That the defendant is charged with a breach of section -17 of the by-law, -and that consequently no other section can be looked at for the purpose of this case. It is true that only-section 17 is mentioned in the information, but it is clear that sections 18, 19, and 20 arc really part of section 17, although separately numbered, and it certainly would have Been better lu\d they not been numbered. Sections 18, 19, and 20 are descriptive of what constitutes a properly constructed receptacle. I am of opinion that the receptacle provided by the defendant does not comply with the requirements of the bylaw, inasmuch as it is not constructed if such material as to prevent any absorption of any offensive matter which may be deposited therein, and further that it is a fixture and cannot therefore be, easily and conveniently removed for the purpose, of being emptied. A small iron receptacle capable of being handled by one man is certainly more convenient than a brick one, and oil sanitary grounds,is preferable, for the reason that iron will resist absorption. I hold that the law is valid, and -am of opinion that the defendant has committed a breach thereof,* but as this is *agly brought as a test case I shall only inflict a nominal penalty. Fined 5s without Court costs, solicitor’s fee £1 10s.”

In the case against J. H. Martin, ’icensee of the Gisborne Hotel, his Worship stated: The evidence shows that the receptacle for rubbish on defendant’s premises was' constructed under the supervision of the Borough Inspector before the by-law under which this information is laid came into operation., and therefore the defendant had every reason to believe that it was sufficient, and that being so I shall inflict a nominal penalty of £1 without costs.

In this case, his 'Worship added that as Chairman of the Licensing Committee he had had occasion to inspect the. premises of the Gisborne Hotel. He had no hesitation in saying that if other premises were kept in the same state of cleanliness there, would he no cause for any complaints.