FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 689, 2 December 1921, Page 4

FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

FINE OF £lO IMPOSED. Arthur Albert Roxburgh, of Bombay. was charged with failing to destroy rabbits on his property in the Mangatawhiri Parish, Franklin County. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Evan Trevor Hughes. Stock Inspector. said that a notice was sent- to defendant on May 7th. 1921, to take steps to destroy the rabbits. An in-.--, spection was made on June 14tR|& when the property was found to be infested vvith rabbits, no work having been done to reduce them, A further letter was sent on. June 15th, and another inspection was made on August 23rd and found conditions similar <to what he found on his previous, the place was infested with rabbits. A furrow had been ploughed round the upper portion of one paddock. This was very roughly ploughed and badly poisoned. " The lower portion of the property .. was badly no signs whatever of any work being found. On September 7th, in company with Inspector Huddlestone, a further • inspection was made. There was no improvement in the condition, and no further work had been done, and the property covered in blackberry,On July 9th a letter was received from defendant, stating he was carrying out work, but was troubled with .. rabbits from’ adjoining farms.

Victor Alfred Huddlestone, Stock > Inspector, said he visited the property on September 7th, in company with Inspector Hughes. Rabbits were very numerous. There was more on- ..' the property at the time of their visit, and no work was being done at that time to destroy the pest. There* were no recent signs of any work. On a previous visit they noticed a.furrow had been turned on the high * part of the farm. In the. centre there was no sjigns of poison having been laid. There was no feed for stock on the place,, because the rabbits had eaten the feed. Defendant said that after the first notice he took steps to poison. He used a small hand hoe 'to turn the sods almost over the farm, except two paddocks. This work was.completed about July 7th. He wrote the Inspector, but did not get a replyw He was surrounded! by rough country, covered with cover and infested with rabbits. He had done all within his power to exterminate the pest. What more could he do when rabbits camefrom other properties ? He had usedphosphorised pollard, and strychnine. „ to stamp the pest out. >•*. Inspector Hughes stated the pro-*-, perty was badly neglected. The Magistrate said the posirion was a bad one indseed. The trouble was that there were large mortgaged and farmers were not financially sound enough to expend a great deal of money to stamp out the pest. The- • Act provided that" the nuisance had to be wiped! out. He understood defendant’s position. For the good of the country where a man’s sources were strained it might be betted for* the farmers to give it up altogetheiv A fine of £lO and cos'ts was impin' posed. ? Defendant was ordered to pay £2*' 10s per month.