View report page

100
The Magistrate dismissed the summons, and the owners did not
press for costs, on the understanding that the case should not be taken
further, and that all necessary works should be carried out.
It is satisfactory to note that the drains were ultimately reconstructed,
by which it appears to me to be a fair deduction that the
original requirements of the Council were justified.
In the other cases it was not found necessary to resort to legal proccedings,
as the owners in each instance proceeded to have the necessary
works carried out after the actual state of the drains had been
demonstrated by opening up the ground.
DRAINAGE BYE-LAWS.
These Bye-laws, which require that plans and written particulars of
all drainage construction and alteration shall be deposited in duplicate
with the Sanitary Authority, came into operation on the 20th August,
1903.
Since that date, to the end of 1905, no less than 163 plans for the
drainage of new buildings, and 1,211 for alterations, amendments, or
additions to drains of existing houses, have been approved by the
Council.
During the year, 671 notices of alteration or addition to, or the
reconstruction of, drains or sanitary fittings in existing houses have been
received, 573 of them being for such work as necessitated the deposit of
drawings and written particulars. Of the latter, 365 were cases of
urgency, in which the work could not be delayed, but had to be proceeded
with at once, notice being given on the prescribed " Urgency "
form, and the required plans and particulars being sent in at a later date.
It is satisfactory to record that with a very few exceptions there
has been little difficulty in obtaining the required particulars, but in
four cases it became necessary to resort to legal proceedings to enforce
comjdiance with these Eye-laws.
The case of Agar v. Nokes, decided in the High Court on the
9th August, is of considerable interest, from the light it throws on the
vexed question as to whether amendments to a drain constitute
"a repair" or "reconstruction." In this case it was held that the