DESTRUCTION OF RABBITS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2085, 21 May 1907, Page 1

DESTRUCTION OF RABBITS.

QUESTION OF METHOD

At the Napier Magistrate’s Court on May 14th, before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., Thomas Hallett was charged with having failed to take proper steps to promote the destruction of rabbits on his Omaha’ki and Kohurau properties since March 11th, on which date he was convicted and fined for a similar offence. Mr. Cornford appeared for the Hawke’s Bay Rabbit Board and Sir. Lusk for the defendant.

Mr. Cornford said there had been two previous convictions against the defendant. The two blocks • mentioned in the informations consisted of over 20,000 acres of country which was of a nature peculiarly adapted for the increase of rabbits. The Ac< provided that for failing to take reasonable and diligent steps to promote the destruction of rabbits after a previous conviction an occupier of land was liable to a fine not exceeding £IOO. and not less than £5. Counsel would not ask for the most stringent application of the Act, but he would submit that unless adequate steps were taken to extirpate the rabbits the results would be extremely grave to the adjoining owners and to Mr. Hallett himself.

Hubert Thomas Amyes, chief inspector for the Hawke’s Bay Rabbit Board, deposed that) the defendant was convicted and fined for failing to destroy rabbits on the two blocks in question in January last and again in March. Witness saw a: portion of the country shortly after the second conviction, and was not satisfied. He wrote to defendant on April 3rd notifying him that legal steps would be taken unless better means were adopted for the destruction of rabbits. About three weeks later witness saw defendant, and in answer to a question told him that on account of the nature of the country traps and dogs were insufficient, and that poison should be used. Mr. Hallett said he would write to' the contractor for destroying rabbits on the matter. On April 26th witness went over a portion of the Omahaki block, being on it about’ five or six hours. He saw 52 rabbits and many indications, but with the exception of a few traps saw no signs of destruction. Witness was also on the Koliurau black and saw 22 rabbits there. The contractor, Mr. Robson, took witness to a. part lot the block which he said had been worked, and , witness saw more , rabbits there in less time ; than on the country which had ,not been worked,;. There were no signs of poison being used; and Mr. Robson said nothing about it. Witness considered poison the only effectual means for such country. Had there been reasonable improvement in the country, which was said to have been worked since the previous conviction these proceedings would not have been taken. Both blocks were ip a very serious condition. To Mr. Lusk; At the actual time Mr. Hallett 1 entered into occupation the property was not so bad as now. —although it had been quite as bad previously. The two blocks had been worked as one property. It was rough country and difficult to work. When Mr. Hallett. first took lip the property in July lust, witness strongly advised him to use poison, and offered to send an inspector to mix it and show Mr. Hallett’s men where and hotv to lay it. If the contractor and his men had killed 4300 rabbits in two months it might be called diligent work, but with poison more than double the number would have fieen killed. He (lid npt consider it diligent and reasonable work, because he did not approve of the methods. Similar evidence was given by C. T. Tanner and D. J. Fleming, who accompanied the previous witness on his visit of inspection on April 26th. Mr, Lusk, in opening the defence, submitted that even if poisoning was considered by the inspector the best means of destruction, still, if it were shown that the defendant bad used diligent and reasonable means to destroy" the rabbits, lie should not be liable to a fine. It was necessary that he should, do his best, and if ho did Ids best he should not be punished for what was beyond his control. Mr. Hallett had let a conrtact to Mr. Robson for the destruction of the rabbits, the price agreed upon being 9d per head, and ip two months lie had to pay for "4300 rabbits at that' rate. The contractor had sometimes five men, hut more often six working every day in the week, including Sundays and holidays, and Mr. Robson would state .in the witness box that when he went there the property was in'a bad state indeed, but that it was in a very much improved condition now. Mr. Robs.-.; would also tell the Court that on Crown lands adjoining, where the work of extermination had been carried on by. the Government with poison, he had killed fourteen rabbits and started forty withijl ail hour. This showed that poison was not so efficacious as the inspectors claimed it to be. Generally the evidence would prove, counsel was confident, that Mr. Hallett had takpu reasonable and diligent steps to destroy the rabbits and that the results had been good. Evidence in support of counsel’s

statement was given by F. L. Robson, F. D. Robson, George Beattio, and T. Hallett. His Worship said he was satisfied from the evidence for the prosecution that the best methods of destroying the rabbits had not been follower, the oxport opinion of the inspectors being unanimous on thr.i point. Mr. Hallett could not shift the responsi- j bility from himself by saying that ho lot the work to a contractor; if the contract gavo Mr. Robson the sole right to deal with the rabbits as ho liked, he should also have had the right of being sololy responsible if the work was not properly carried out. At the same time His Worship was of opinion that Mr. Hallett had been doing what ho thought was right. There was no reason why a heavy penalty should be imposed, but it was necessary to draw attention to tho fact that if one method of rabbit destruction proved non-effective and not to the satisfaction of tho inspectors, some other method must bo adopted. It was unfortunate for Mr. Hallett that it had been necessary' to lay two informations, 'one for each block, but to overcome that difficulty one of them would bo dismissed. On the other the minimum ponalty of £5 would be imposed, with costs amounting to £4 Is.

PROSPERITY OF WAIROA. A FORECAST.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Wairoa A. and P. Association held at Frasertown on May 11th, Mr O’Neil said that looking into the future he had a vision of Wairoa as a site for the Show, contrasted with that at Frasertown. They thought their progress the last few years wonderful, but he maintained that it was small compared to what they might expect within the next few y’ears. Great areas of country' were being improved, and more settlers were continually coming amongst them and developing land which had hitherto been a wilderness. It was a fair estimate to conclude that their productive capacity would be trebled within the next ten y r ear,s. Seeing this, it was not preposterous to imagine a bridge over tho river from the Turiroa side in ten years’ time. Then all that side of the district would be brought as close to Frasertown as it had been to Wairoa in the past. Then they would shortly have a’ bridge over tho river which tapped tho AVaikarenioana country. A stock route would be running through to Auckland. Then take tho country all around them which was being opened up. In Ruakituri valley over 60,000 acres would shortly bo settled and productive. In Hangaroa another 40,000 acres were coming into use, and in Mangapoilti another 20,000 acres of undeveloped country was being settled.. Frasertown was in the midst of all this development, and must be the stock centre of the district. .Of course. Wairoa was, and would . always remain, the commercial centre of tho district. But wliat was there on the pther side of Wairoa—-the ocean. Frasertown was surrounded, by a stock-raising country. With a bridge over the river in the Turiroa direction, the bridge that was shortly' to be erected whore the ferry now was, and all tho country opening up round them lie had ; mentioned, besides a great area at the back of Nuhaka and Mangapoiki,. in ten years’ time if the site of the Show were now removed to Wairoa, it must be shifted , back to Frasertown,