RABBIT POISONING

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 123, 28 April 1925, Page 9

RABBIT POISONING

CHARGES AGAINST FARMERS. CASES DISMISSED. On the information of the Manawatu Rabbit Board, several farmers in that body’s district were charged at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday with failure to destroy rabbits after having been served with notice to do so. Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided. The first case was against Ernest Graham Beard, of Rangiotu, for whom Mr Cooper appeared. Mr R. Mackay, of Bulls, represented the hoard. Douglas Robert Barron, inspector for the Manawatu Rabbit Board, gave eveidence that on January 21 he had issued over 300 notices to property owners to destroy rabbits immediately. On March 13 he had visited defendant’s property and had found that little work was being done—quite insufficient for the destruction of rabbits on the property. Witness laid subsequently sent a warning notice to defendant hy registered letter, and on April 1 and 8 made further inspections, observing 19 rabbits on the latter occasion. He did not think that defendant had spent £lO on destruction work.

William Sutherland, inspector for the ltaiigitoto Rabbit Bourd, deposed that lie had accompanied the previous witness on His inspection ot defendant’s property on April 8. While there witness saw about 500 burrows, about 15 of which had been filled in, bnt not systematically. The land, in his opinion, would bo easy to clear, but the work being done was very unsatisfactory. This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr Cooper called the defendant, who gave evidence that adjacent to his land was ono of the worst infested properties in the whole of the board’s distirct. Witness was constantly trapping, poisoning and shooting rabbits on his farm, and on receipt of notice from the inspector to lay poison had complied with its provisions. He had never seen the inspector on his property. As a result of the poison that had been laid, many rabbits had been found dead on the property; also four pigs that had strayed from a neighbour’s farm on to his.

C. Beard, father of the previous witness, deposed that he had had long experience in the destroying of rabbits, and that, in his opinion, defendant was doing his best to check the pest. Cross-examined by Mr Mackay, witness stated that it was nut possible to see a single rabbit in the daytime oil defendant’s nroperty. H. Lamont, farmer, residing near defendant, gave evidence that four pigs of his had strayed on to defendant’s property and had died through eating poison there. To Mr Mackay, witness stated that he could not say for certain whether the pigs had eaten poison laid by defendant for rabbits.

A. T. Hailey, farmer, deposed that he had seen defendant and his father laying poison. There were, in his opinion, less than half the number oi rabbits on the property now than there were 12 months ago. L. Beard, son of defendant, gave evidence that he, his father and grandfather had laid poison both before and after receipt of notice from the inspector. He had never seen the inspector on the property. It. M. White, farmer, of Mangawliata, deposed that he and another member of the Dairy Farmers’ Union had been deputed by that body to inspect defendant’s property. This had been done on Anzac Day, and there had been found places where poison had been laid and also filled-in rabbit burrows. He had not seen a single rabbit. This closed the case for defendant, hnd the Magistrate, in dismissing the information, stated that, from the evidence, it was apparent that defendant had taken steps to comply with the terms of the notice sent him. ANOTHER CHARGE DISMISSED. In the next ease Roderick Chisholm, of Bainesse, was the defendant. He was represented by Mr Grant. The evidence for the prosecution closely followed that of the previous case, while for the defence it was contended that defendant had done his best to destroy rabbits on his property. In this case also the Magistrate dismissed the information, commenting that the hoard had been established lor a period of only about one year, and some of the farmers consequently had not yet come to realise their full responsibilities. 11, however, any cases were brought before him in another year’s time lie would take a more serious view of the position. INFORMATION WITHDRAWN.

Aii information against Frederick Robert Waller, of Buinesse, was withdrawn,