FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 694, 20 December 1921, Page 5

FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

A CASE RE-OPENED.

FINE OF £5 INFLICTED,

At a previous sitting of the Pukekohe S.M. Court, John Harvey Evans, farmer, of Te Aroha, who owns property at Bombay, was convicted and fined £3O for failing to destroy rabbits. Defendant did not appear at that sitting, but later applied for a re-hearing of the case, which 1 was granted. The charge was heard before Mr EL W, Burton, S.M., last week, when defendant, who was represented by Mr P. H. Easley, pleaded not guilty. Evan Trevor Hughes, stock inspector, said on April 23rd 1921 he sent a notice to defendant to destroy rabbets He made an inspection on June 14th and found the property infested with rabbits and no attempt being made to rid" the place of them, A registered letter was tent to defendant on June 30th. Defendant replied stating he had written gto the Agricultural Department at Hamilton for poison and was arranging with adjoining property owners to lay the poison. On August 23rd another inspiMioo was nude when he again found r->kbits numerous—no satisfactory work having been done. In company with Inspector Huddlestone he made an inspection on September 7th and found conditions unaltered.

To Mr Basley: He never tvrote defendant instructing him what work to do, because after getting defendant’s letter he presumed he knew what to do. On August 23ru he found some work had been done along Hall’s boundary, also along Shaw’s boundary. A large area of th 6 property of 485 acres was in fern, only about 100 acres being ip grass.

Victor Alfred Huddlestone, stock inspector, said he inspected defendant's property in company with' Inspector Hughes on September 7th;, and found rabbits numerous and no work was being done to destroy them. Hall Bros, complained of the rabMts being numerous on Evans’ property, and that they were eating out the young grass. To Mr Basley: Mr Hall did not tell him he was grazing the property from defendant, and that he was deriving benefit from it. On the inspection he saw some evidence of; what might have been poisoning, but the work w.as not satisfactory.

James Harvey Evans, the defendant, said he had never had any experience with rabbits. He acquired the Bombay property by way of exchanage. "'He received a notice regarding the rabbits He sent Mr Hall £1 to obtain poison, but the latter returned the money and told defendant to obtain the poison himself. Hall told him to obtain a 281 b tin of poison, which would be sufficient. This was done. Hall had the use of the farm for grazing purposes.

To Mr Hughes: Other than the 281 b of poison he had not laid other poison. He pad had the place for seven months. Defendant was convicted and fined £5, costs 7s.