FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3750, 4 February 1928, Page 3

FAILURE TO DESTROY RABBITS.

COSTS TAIKOREA FARMER £5.

S.M. EULOGISES WORK OF BOARD.

A charge of failing to destroy rabbits on his property at Taikorea was preferred agajnst C. E. Pedley by the Manawatu Rabbit Board at the local S.M. Court yesterday before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M. Defendant was represented by Mr. Cooper and the case for the Board was conducted by Inspector D. R. Barron.

The Inspector tendered lengthy evidence as to routine and special notices sent defendant requesting him to eradicate the pest, and referred to personal visits and inspections leading up to a joint inspection of the property on January 6th of this year by himself and Inspector Palmer, of Feilding. After each visit defendant had ordered cyanide and a certain amount of work had been carried out on the farm, but the work had been done at odd interval* which was not in the best interests of rabbit eradication.

(Cross-examined by Mi’. Cooper witness denied ever telling defendant his property was clean of rabbits and that he did not believe the statement that had been made that eight rabbits had been shot on the property one evening.

Inspector Palmer gave evidence as to having carried out a joint inspection of defendant’s property with Inspector Barron on January 6th. He had seen about 13 rabbits that morning between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. and a good many signs of rabbits. The property was not in a good state. If it had been properly fumigated this work would not have taken more than from four to five days to do. To Mr. Cooper: Poisoned carrots were of no use in hot weather.

Charles E. Pedley, in evidence, said that he leased his farm from the Public Trust and it was inspected annually. There was a eonvenant in the lease that he had to keep down rabbits. On the last inspection in November the Public Trustee had made no complaint about the presence of rabbits. Inspector Rankin had given witness credit for keeping his property clean. Witness gave evidence as to fumigation work that was done on the farm but denied receiving two notices sent out by the Inspector. The Inspector had informed witness that his property was clean on one occasion and had said he did not believe a statement made to the effect that six or eight rabbits had been shot there one evening? The last poisoning (carrot) had been carried out on January 6th of this year when 30 rabbits had been taken from a furrow near the boundary of witness’ and Dixon’s property. The latter property had hundreds of rabbits on it.

To the Inspector: The rabbits came on to witness’ property from the low-lying ground adjoining. The Inspector pointed out that it was ten to twelve years since Inspector Rankin had operated over the country referred to. Mrs. Pedley corroborated her husband’s evidence with regard to the Inspector’s remarks about the property being clean. Thev sons, Edward, Archie, and Reginald Pedley and T. Goodwin all gave evidence as to having carried out poisoning work on the farm and TI. J. Penwick, J. Martin and G. A. Arnett, neighbours, gave evidence that they considered Pedley’s farm fairly clear of the pest. The S.M. in summing up said that a certain amount of work had evidently been carried out and probably if / the work had been ‘concentrated and done when the Inspector had first notified defendant there would have been no prosecution. Also had defendant put as much energy into rabbit eradication as lie had into defending the ease there would not have been any need for a prosecution. The Inspector did not deny that work had been done'on the property but he had asked defendant to concentrate his efforts to destroy the rabbits, which was not done. Defendant denied receiving certain notices but his own witnesses showed that, they must have been received. Also defendant admitted that 30 rabbits had been taken from his property on January 6th, which proved that he had not taken the proper steps to eradicate the pest. He had done work on and off and from time to time which was not'the way to destroy rabbits. If he had made a friend of the Inspector and had obtained his advice and followed it out there would have •been no cause for a prosecution. The trouble was that some farmers regarded the Inspector as an enemy. There was no doubt that the Manawatu Rabbit Board and the Inspector had done good work and a lot of farmers would agree with this view. Others, possibly considered the work a little tiresome. On the whole, however, it must bo agreed that the Board was doing good work. Defendant was convicted and lined £5 with costs £1 2s. ’