FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 646, 1 July 1921, Page 7

FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

FRANKLIN COUNTY OFFENDERS. “ THE EVIL HAS TO BE MET.” { ' A PENALTY OF £2O. In addition to the case of failing to destroy rabbits, reported in our last issue,, two more were heard before Mr E. W. Burton, S,M.» at Monday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s 'Court at Papakura. Stanley Broughton, who ojvns certain lands in the Karaka Parish of the Franklin County, was charged with failing to destroy rabbits. Defendant, who was represented by Mr C. A. C. Sexton, pleaded not guilty. Mr F, H. Brittain appeared for the Stock Department.

Duncan Finlayson, farmer, said he had a property adjoining defendant’s lend. The latter had been in possession about two years. During this time Broughton had done a certain amount of poisoning. The country was fairly easily rid of the pest, provided the cover was cleared. There were about 30 acres out of 90 acres covered in fern and blackberry. Some of the land was ploughed and allowed to go back into fern and blackberry. Witness had suffered from the rabbits from Broughton’s property. He did not know whether any poison had been laid of late: In his opinion the rabbits were not properly kept down.. If systematic steps were taken the rabbits could be eradicated To Mr Sexton: The place was in about the same condition now as it was when Broughton took it over. Defendant’s war service seriously handicapped him in his work. It would cost approximately £6 or £7, per acre to clean the property. Rabbits were all round witness’ place. Mr Broughton had to clear the rabbits from his place as well as the rabbits from other farms. They went on to defendant’s because there was cover.

To Mr Brittain: Since the Rabbit Committee was formed in the Karaka some good work has been done. M, Cost'er said he was a neighbour of the defendant. Since January 22 Bioughton may have done some poisoning, but nothing had been done near his place. Some poison was laid but it was not done satisfactorily. After some furrows had been made witness inspected them and thought that sufficient poison had not been laid. Poison was only laid places. Smales, the previous owner, was brought to Court for not poisoning, but he did so subsequently. He did not think Broughton’s property was a draw for rabbits,. They came at night and destroyed the adjoiningproperties. In witness’ opinion defendant’s place had been neglected.

To Mr Sexton: Witness was friendly with the defendant. He did not remember telling defendant he would like to have taken his property over. Witness kept his place clean. It would take about lewd of poison to do the w r ork properly—to do it reasonably. Poisoning should be done in the ■ dry weather and when feed was scarce. Witness lost a couple of crops due to rabbits not > alone from Broughton's, but from others as well,. It had been hard to get labour, but he had been able to get ample poison during the last 12 months. A. T„ Hughes,- an inspector under the Rabbit Act, said his first inspection after the notice was on February 14. He found rabbits to be particularly numerous. Some of the land had been ploughed up, but it was now going back again. He returned on April 5 and saw/ Broughton to whom he pointed out that sufficient poisoning had not been clone. He also tpld defendant that unless work'' of a more satisfactory order was done he would report the case. Rater, on April 19, he and Mr Brittain inspected the property and found no poison on the boundaries\sdjoining other properties He was over the work last Friday, and in his opinion the work was not done rsystematically. To Mr Sexton: The defendant’s property was one of the worst in the Karaka. The cover -was not very thick and the rabbits went all through it. He inspected the furrows and found hlat in places no poison hid been laid at all. Poison would often remain for a few days without being touched. F. H. Brittain, inspector under the Rabbit Nuisance Act, said, in consequence of Mr Hughes’ report, he wrote to defendant telling him that if effective steps were not taken prosecution woulct follow. He made an inspection in April and found the work had not been done satisfactorily. He told defendant that if better work was not done he would have to be prosecuted. On April 19 he again inspected and found some more furrows but they were chiefly round the centre of the property, what he termed poisoning, but there were no signs of poison being laid on the lower portion near Coster’s nor on the upper portion near the road. The burrows all. showed the ralibits were very active by «.he

indications on the outside. The property, in his opinion, could have been kept very clean. Good work was done by other property owners, in fact no better work had been done for years.. To Mr Sexton: Two to two and ahalf tins would have given the place a good poisoning'. Stanley Broughton, defendant,-said he had beer, on the property for the last 15 or 16 months His .predecessor, Mr Smal.es, had been fined just before witness took the property over. It was then infested with rabbits. Between January and April he had put down two tins of “toxa” and two tins of “death trail/’ about 401 b, as well as two tins of phosphorised pollard. During last year he could not get labour, but he had leceived assistance from neighbours Witness laid the poison the same way as other people did it. He did not leave portions unpoisoned. Owing to war wouhds in the back, arm and leg, he was not able to do the same amount of work now as he could before he went away He did not consider his property worse than many others in the district Shooting parties visited his property but soon departed as they could not do any good. It was difficult to get poison when he received notice from the Rabbit Board.

To Mr Brittain: The property at the upper end near the road was poisoned on April 19. He also laid toxa along Costa’s boundary.

C. V: Grant, farmer and carrier, said he had on several occasions arranged for assistance to go and help Broughton lay the rabbit poison. He was sure defendant had had more poison than anyone else in that particular locality. *

A. J. Wood, farmer and member of the Karaka Farmers’ Union, said there was a difficulty in getting poison and each member “put in” and about half a ton was acquired. Mr. Broughton obtained some from witness. He had seen poison laid on defendant’s property and considered it was done as favourably as any other in the district, There were more rabbits on other properties and defendant’s place was by no means the worst.

To Me Brittain; His experience of rabbits was during the last two years, since die had had land on the Karaka. The magistrate in imposing a fine of £2O and costs 7s, said that according to a Supreme Court judgment it was held that if in the opinion of the inspector the steps taken to destroy rabbits ' were insufficient he was bound to convict. In the case under consideration evidence had been adduced by neighbours that they had suffered through the rabbits from defendant’s property. He added that rabbits were rapidly taking possession of the country and in its interests the evil had to be met. This could only be done by imposing heavy fines on offenders It was absolutely no use of half a dozen men keeping their, land clean if one man did not.

AN OTHER OFFENDER.

FINED £5

The third case called was ; that against Chas. Fisher, who also Owns land in the Karaka.

Defendant also pleaded not guilty' and was represented by Mr Sexton. Mr F. H. Brittain appeared for the Stock Department.

Inspector Hughes said he visited the property on April 19 and found no work had been done whatever, except a little poisoning on Hangers boundary. Two - returned soldiers were poisoning on Turner’s boundary: He was there last Friday and no further work had been done. The place was in an infested state. Some of the adjoining properties had been properly poisoned and the property' was a menace to the adjoining lands. To Mr Sexton: A little poisoning had taken place. Mr Brittain said he sent defendant a notice on March 5, and he visited the place on March 23. He met Fisher on Hanger’s section where he was then living. Defendant took witness and showed him where he had been laying poison. Witness told lisher he had not done sufficient work and if he did not shape properly he would go to Court. He said he had had the property only since January, Witness made it clear that if he did not get to work bright and early he woud be prosecuted. On Turner’s place nothing whatever was done and the place was infested. Witness wrote him on March 24 and made a further inspection with Inspector Hughes on April 19 and found that two men were at work on the burrows on Turner’s property, and in three paddocks at the back there were furrows and faint traces of poison and the rabbits in three paddocks were very few. Down over the railway line there was a line of sods but he could not saiy if poison was laid. Across the railway line no work had been done and the place v/as infested with rabbits. To Mr Sexton: Dhen he went on the property the first time he found no poisoning whatever. The defendant said he did not own the property known as Hangar’s. When the inspector first visited the property he had not done any poison-

ing. Shortly after this witness took ill and went away. When he* returned he found his daughter had purchased Toxa for poisoning. He in-

spected the property and found his daughter and son had. laid poison all over and round the farm and particularly round the gullies. The inspector came again and went over Turner’s and he said “Nothing has been done.” Witness replied that as labour was scarce his son and daughter had done it, to which the inspector replied: “It is not nearly sufficient.” Later witness got two tins of pollard from Hamilton poison depot. Altogether they had five tins of Toxa,- which was laid on the property/as well as other poison The reason the whole job was not done was because they could not get poison Through the poison he had lost a pacing mare valued at; £3OO, also 6 pigs, 2 dogs and 2 calves. The magistrate said that as defendant only had the land a short while he would not impose a heavy penalty. He had committed an offence. He-, impressed on him to hurry up and rM his land of rabbits and do actual and vigorous work. He imposed a fine of £5 and 7s costs.