RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3603, 29 January 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Day

(Before Captain Preece, R.M.) BREACHES OF RABBIT NUISANCE ACT. Taylor White was charged on the information of Mr Pasley, Rabbit Inspector, for that he did fail, on service of a notice delivered on 20th October last, immediately take steps to destroy all rabbits on his property, Glengarry, as required by the Rabbit Nuisance Act, in the shortest time possible. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Cotterill appeared for the prosecution. R. C. Pasley deposed that he was Rabbit Inspector for this district. (Appointment produced). A complaint had been made to him respecting defendant's run having rabbits on it, and he served the usual notice served. He had reason to believe that no steps had been taken by the defendant to abate the nuisance. F. B. Russell said-he was employed by Mr Pasley to inspect runs and serve notices under the Rabbit Nuisance Act. He served the usual notice according to the Act on Mr Taylor White on October 20th last at Glengarry station. At that time he saw rabbits on the defendant's run. Witness returned to Glengarry on January Oth of this year, and saw rabbits then on the back of the run. He also saw two rabbits on December 30th, ISB2. He reported to Mr White that he had seen these rabbits. Mr Cotterill said His Worship would see by the 34th section of the Act that the ■whole onus of proof rested -with the defendant, and lie would not, therefore, call any further evidence. The defendant, being sworn, said the Rabbit Inspector had told him on January 10th that he had seen two rabbits on his place. During that month witness killed .eleven rabbits on his own property, and five on a property adjoining. He had hunted for rabbits for six days. [Extract from diary containing notes bearing on the matter put in]. Mr Cotterill said the present cases had been brought not to have any heavy fines inflicted so much as to draw attention to the necessity for clearing rabbits oft , lands in the district. By his own showing the defendant had not commenced to destroy the rabbits on his run for some four months after Mr Pasley had served a notice on him to do so, neither had he shown that the nuisance was effectually abated yet as the Act required he should do. A fine of £1 was inflicted, with costs 275, and solicitor's fee £1 Is. Lawrence Higgins, on a similar charge, pleaded not guilty. Mr Lascelles appeared for the defendant, and Mr Cotterill conducted the prosecution. F. B. Russell gave evidence of service of the usual notice on October 19, 1882, at Tukirangi. Witness went there again on the 28th of December, and on that occasion saw one rabbit. He told Mr Higgins what he had seen, and the latter said he would take steps in the matter, and that he had killed one already. By Mr Lascelles : Was not sure that Mr Higgins was the owner of the whole of the Tukirangi block. He knew the boundaries, but could not describe them. He only knew it by the fences. Could not swear that ull the land -within ilr. HUg--giu's fences was Tukirangi. On the day he delivered the notice he did not see any rabbits on the land. About six weeks before he served the notice he had seen rabbits on the land. The rabbit he saw_ on the 27th December was near Mr Higgins' house. To the best of his knowledge that house is on the Tukirangi block, but could not swear. It might be on some other block. R. C. Pasley said that in Mr Higgins' sheep returns he described his property as Tukirangi only. He was not satisfied that Mr Higgins had taken steps to kill the rabbits on his run. By Mr Lascelles : He had not been upon the land himself looking after rabbits, but depended solely on Mr Russell's reports, upon the strength of which only the present proceedings were brought. Witness declined to give any opinion as to what runholders should do to seciu-e the destruction of rabbits, although they were liable to be prosecuted if they failed to do what he considered necessary. Mr Lascelles said he would like it to go forth the utter absurdity of these proceedings. Here was Mr Pasley prosecuting people for not complying with certain conditions that "in liis opinion ,, should be earned out, when nobody knew what that opinion was. Mr Pasley in fact had just now refused to disclose what steps should "in his opinion" be taken to rid aproperty of rabbits, and it was therefore impossible to tell whether a man in attempting to do so would be acting rightly or not. There was scarcely a newspaper in the colony that did not teem with remedies ; which of all these would meet with Mr Pasley's approval, and l>e "in his opinion" sufficient means, Sea. ? Mr Cotterill remarked that the onus of proof lay with the defendant. If Mr Lascelles called witnesses to show what steps had been taken he could then examine Mr Pasley as to whether he considered they were sufficient or not. Mr Lascelles said the very suggestion of such a thing was absurd, for after Mr Pasley had heard the evidence he might simply say "I do not consider the steps sufficient," and there was an end to the matter at once. Unless Mr Pasley told them what acts were necessary, how was the Court to say whether those acts had been complied with or not. Besides there was in point of fact no evidence before the Court of rabbits having been seen on the run. There was evidence of one niiit/lo rabbit, but that, he observed, was not provided for in the Act. In every clause the animal was mentioned in the plural number. Mr Cotterill: This may have been a married rabbit. Mr Lascelles : Then prove it. The Court said the onus of proof, according to the Act, lay with the defendant, who could produce his evidence now. Mr Lascelles said, if His Worship desired to take that strained view of the law, it was useless to defend the case. He •wanted to know what Mr Pasley's "opinion" was. Was Mr Pasley to walk about as an 'unperium in impcrio and prosecute people for not knowinghis private opinion ? Why, according to the Court's reading of the Act, Mr Piisley had more power vested in him than the Governor of New Zealand, and the Government too. His word might upset everything if he only cared to say that such and such acts were not in accordance with his " opinion." It was a farce, and such proceedings would make the Court a bye word. The Court must surely have some basis to go upon. Mr Lascelles concluded by urging that there was really no case to answer as far as the evidence went ' After some further discussion of the legal aspect of the case the Court called for the defence. Lawrence Higgins said his property had different names. His shepherd and himself were hunting for rabbits five days out of the seven on his property. His shepherd killed one. AVitness saw another one about the time stated by Russell. There were no rabbits on his Tukirangi property at all. Those he had seen were on another portion of the run bearing a different name. By Mr Cotterill: He had sent natives out to hunt for the rabbits with dogs; they ■were authorised to kill pigs also. His shepherd was also under instructions to kill any rabbits he might see. Mr Lascelles contended that the case was bad. It was straining the law in a most absurd fashion to say that, because one rabbit was seen on a man's property he should be brought up under a highly penal Act and fined. The whole yravmen of the charge rested on this, that one single rabbit was seen on the defendant's property, which it was highly probable enme from an adjoining run, where rabbits existed. The law -was intended, not to punish mdividuals for a crime of which they were not guilty, but to preserve peace and good order. His Worship said he would dismiss the case, notwithstanding that the Inspector had said he did not consider defendant had taken sufficient steps. E. D. Tanner was similarly charged, and - was also represented by Mr Lascelles. P. B. Russell said he had seen rabbits on two occasions on Mr Tanner's run, once before the notice was served, and once subsequently. Mr LastoeUes said bis elbnt admitted biv-

ing taken no steps to rid the property cf rabbits for the simple reason that he could S find none on it. A fine of £1 was inflicted, with costs "s, and solicitor's fee £1 Is. BEEACH OF THE BOHOTJGH BYE-LAWS. Anthony Gordon was charged with a breach of the Borough Bye-laws in having, on the 20th instant, depastured a horse on an unenclosed section in Dalton-street. The accused admitted the charge, and was fined Is and wsf.-i, it being a first offence. FORGERY. Ralph Crawford was put forward on remand, charged with having, on the 11 tli instant, forged a cheque on the Lmonßank for £7, the said cheque bearing the presumed signature of H. C. Lambert. John Young, licensee of the Railway Hotel, Spit, said the prisoner came to his hotel on the 17th instant and tendered a cheque for £7 (produced and handed to the Court). Witness gave the prisoner £2 10s in cash, and paid 6s to the cabman who brought him, intending to present the cheque at the bank next day. Prisoner told witness he had been working for Mr Lambert at Ids station, and that he got the cheque from him. On the following morning prisoner got an advance of 4s 6d, also £2 Is 6d later on. Witness presented the cheque on the ISth at the Napier branch of the Union Bank, when it was returned to him, with a memo, on it," signature unlike." He returned to the Spit and handed the cheque over to Constable Harvey. By the prisoner : I took the cheque for granted, not knowing Mr Lambert's signature. I was rather dubious of it, as I did not know you either. I was not told your name at the bar at that time. I heard it, next morning. You did not ask me to send the cheque or order up to Mr Lambert. I refused to cash the cheque for you at first. I cashed it afterwards because you told me you were working- at the station. You were not sober when you came to my house. Taylor did not tell me your name, but told me you had been working- on Mr Lambert's station. After hearing the evidence of H. C. Lambert and H. A. King, clerk in the Union Bank, also of S. E. Cooper, jeweller, who had at prisoner's request furnished him with a blank cheque, the prisoner was committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. The Court then rose.