S.M. COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3577, 18 December 1926, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Hie usual monthly sitting of the local S.M. Court was held yesterday before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M. F. C. Waller, W. Birch, L. Pine, J. D. Cookslcy were each fined £2 with costs for speeding within the borough. E. C. Boyle, for a breach of his

prohibition order, was fined £l, with costs 7/-, one month being allowed in which to pay the fine. FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS

The Manawatu Rabbit Board (Air Barron) proceeded against H. A. Prebble, farmer, Glen Oroua, for failing (o eradicate rabbits on his property. Defendant was represented by Mr Bergin. The Inspector (Mr Barron) gave evidence as to having inspected tjie

property on which little work had been done to eradicate the pest and produced copies of notices served on defendant from time to time.

E. A. Palmer, stock inspector, of Feilding, gave corroborative evidence. The property had been badly infested with rabbits when inspected and there were no signs of work having been canned out to eradicate them.

Defendant in evidence said that ever since he had owned the property ho had kept up a war against rabbits. He gave details of poisonings, fumigations, etc., carried out by him on the property. The place had mow been cleaned up. Henry Sexton, farmer, Taikorea, gave evidence as to having lent defendant a fnmigator from time to time. The farm was in good condition now. A. W. Gaze said he had inspected the properly which was in good condition. The S.AI. said that the whole trouble appeared to be that the farmers regarded the inspector as an enemy instead of a friend. They hung out as long as possible and then did the work. Prebble should have done his work in the first place. The onlyway to make farmers carry out the work of rabbit eradication was to make it too expensive! if or them not to do it. In Prebble’s case it. was stated in evidence that the farm could have been cleaned lip for £4. A fine of £5 and costs £1 2/- would be imposed. A similar charge was preferred against Airs M. Carroll, of Glen Oroua. ' 1 nlll The inspector stated that whenever he visited the property some one was “just starting-” the work ordered, hut the work was never done. , ‘ ; iiSOi F. J. and AY. F. Carroll gave evidence on behalf of defendant and testified as to the work they had done. viflll The S.AI. said the ease was similar to the previous one. When the summons was served on them they became more energetic and had the work done. A fine of £5 was imposed, costs amounting to £1 1/-. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following civil undefended cases: — AL E. Perreau v. J. R. Anderson,, claim £2B 8/1, costs £4 17/-; Smith and Starkie v. S. Harris, £l, costs -8/-; same v. C. Spry, £7 10/-, costs £2 0/6; same v. S. Bayne, £3 17/9, costs £1 13/6; same v. A. Harper, 2/9, costs 15/-; same v. T. Murphy, £3 1/6 ,*osts £1 13/6.