THE PESTIFEROUS BURY.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 248, 2 August 1928, Page 7

THE PESTIFEROUS BURY.

FARMERS AT VARIANCE. On Need For Rabbit Fence. Judgment Reserved. A case of very considerable interest -to local farmers was heard in the .Magistrate's Court, Futaruru, on Thursday, before Mr. S. L. Patterson, S.M.

The case, which lasted from before the luncheon adjournment until T.early six p.m., was one in which Robert Henry Bailey, of Auckland, owner of a farm at Tirau, had served notice on Thomas Bottomley and C. . T. B. Smith, neighbouring farmers, under the Fencing Act, 1908, to convert their boundaries fences into a > fence. Mr. W. C. Hewitt (Hewitt and Reid) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. G. G. Bell (Hampson and Bell) had •charge of Messrs. Bottomley’s and Smith’s interests.

In outlining plaintiff’s case, Mr. Hewitt; stressed the fact that the law bad been recently amended so that (f where it could be shown there was a likelihood of menace from rabbits an owner could call on another to con--tribute towards a rabbit-proof boundary fence, and it was not now necessary to show that the person called upon gained any benefit. Robert Henry Bailey, Auckland, Stated that he estimated the cost of making Bottomley’s fence rabbitproof at £49 17s and Smith’s £B9 12s. Smith’s fence was erected 21 years ago, and the material used for 66 chains was old (in 1907). The fence had never been overhauled except when it fell down, and stock had been continually getting through during "the past few years. His farm was all -jn grass and top-dressed, and he desired to protect it from rabfit-in-fested country alongside, which was mostly unimproved, and which afforded shelter to rabbits. He had been dealing with the rabbits for years, but after clearing them out _ they were back in a few weeks’ time. The adjoining property was too rough to lay down in grass and it wouldn’t pay to attempt to do so. He had already rabbit-proofed two miles of his boundary fence. As many as 200 rabbits f had been poisoned in one night in a 50 acre paddock.' Rabbits came from miles around to top-dressed country. Cross-examined, witness stated he had about 960 acres. The balance belonged to his wife. He had been farming it for 21 years, and managing the property before that. He had delayed taking action because he hoped the settlers would combine. He took no action in regard to Gray’s property because he combined to keep the rabbits down. It was not possible to exterminate the rabbits on Bottomley’s and Smith’s properties because of the rough nature of' the ground. No portion of his property :was as badly infected as the areas he complained of. Mr. Bell: It is not usual to erect rabbit-proof fences in a dairying district, is it?—Yes, if there are enough rabbits. You can’t dairy with them. . To Mr. Hewitt, witness stated that Smith’s and Bottomley’s properties couldn’t be ploughed near his boundary. When he gave notice the properties were badly infested, but they bad since been cleaned up. J. L. Morris, Government stock inspector, Matamata, stated he knew <fcbe properties concerned, and they •were not m a rabbit board area though they were in a rabbit infested area. He had always regarded Mr. Bailey as taking every effective step to keep his property clean. There had considerable trouble with adjoining properties, which for a time bad been held by speculators. Ip .April last the whole of the properties were rabbit-infested and he then thought it justifiable for Bailey to arrange for a rabbit-proof fence. The Magistrate: What benefit do > they (defendants) get from the 'fence? - -*—.-t-i- i—l •

, Mr. Hewitt: I submit, sir, that it’s question as to whether they get a benefit, but a question solely of the possibility of Bailey’s place being InTested with rabbits from their properties. The Magistrate: Yes, but there is the amount of their contribution. Is 'the law that a call can be made on another who gets no benefit to erect a fence?

Mr Hewitt: Yes. Mr. Bell: Surely you don’t suggest a call can be made on anyone? I submit it simply leaves to the court the right when there Is no other fc means of combatting the pest, p M r . Hewitt: That is so. These properties are badly infested and when rabbits are apparently exterminated they are as bad as ever in three

weeks’ time. iThe Magistrate (to witness): Ho think with your knowledge of the

district, it is possible to cope with the rabbits on Bottomley’s and Smith’s. Witness (slowly, after hesitation): Yes, after the improvement shown. Mr. Hewitt: Have you ever prosecuted any one for having rabbit infested areas?—l have laid information but they have poisoned before the case came on. Last winter the area was clean, while in the summer I have never seen it worse. Mr. Hewitt: If they ceased poisoning for three months what would happen?—The properties would become infested again. Mr. Beil: I suggest you saw more rabbits on Bailey’s property than on Bottomley’s. -—Yes. Mr. Bell: Is it usual to erect rabbit fences in dairying country?—No, poisoning and fumigation work is done.

Mr. Bell: What is the state of Bottomley’s now ?—There is no menace from Bottomley’s at the present time. So long as present conditions are maintained there is no menace from either property. In the past the menace had been serious. He thought Bailey could cope with the menace by ordinary means. Mr. ■ Hewitt: Skins are not worth ■much in summer, but they are valuable in winter ?—Yes. J. H. Carnachan, farm manager, of Morrinsville, stated he had known the properties for half a century. They were always dirty and the rabbits were no sooner got down than they were back again. There was little cover for rabbits on Bailey’s block. He had tried everything and had come to the conclusion there was no otherway but to fence. Bullocks would push Smith’s fence over as the posts were rotten through age. Mr. Bell: If Bailey’s bullocks are on his turnips isn’t it a fair thing that he should fence?—Amidst general laughter the bench remarked that

“ fair or not ” that wasn’t the law. Mr. Bell explained he was aiming to show the demands were unreasonable. Mr. Bell: You heard the stock inspector’s evidence?—lt is impossible to deal with rabbits on dirty country. Bottomley’s was , only one-third improved. Mr. Bell: If he took steps by trapping and poisoning he (Bailey) could keep his land clean? —Trapping is no good. To Mr. Hewitt, witness stated it was impossible to effectively cope with the rabbits by poisoning and trapping. Charles Wills, fencing contractor, stated he had been working on the place for seven months.

Mr. Bell: I suggest you are possibly expecting the job of erecting this fence? The Magistrate (mildly): That has nothing to do with the case. Witness (emphatically): Certainly not; I expect Mr. Bailey will call tenders. Mr. Bell: Would you say the adjoining properties are breeding grounds for rabbits? —Yes, certainly. Mr. Bell: They come from Bottomley’s to Bailey’s?—Yes. You heard Mr. Morris say there were more on Bailey’s ?—Yes, hut he said that was on a wet day. Mr. Bell: I don’t know whether it was wet or fine, it evidently suited the rabbits. (Laughter).

Mr. Hewitt: My friend misses the point of Mr. Morris’ evidence. In summarising the defence, Mr. Bell stated a rabbit-proof fence was not necessary. He submitted there was no more danger from Smith’s or Bottomley’s than any other area, and the pest could be coped with by ordinary measures. It would be most unjust if a large landowner could force struggling settlers to contribute to a fence from which they received no benefit. He felt that Bailey’s bona fides were open to comment. The Magistrate: It’s absurd to question his bona fides. He has not spent his money for amusement or to be ungracious to his neighbours. Continuing, Mr. Bell held that the proposals were most inequitable, and would have no effect on freeing Bailey from rabbits. Thomas Bottomley stated he had been farming at Tirau for two years. He owned a dairy farm which was m a considerably improved state. He had been trapping and poisoning all

the time. The inspector went over his place the other day with him, and they did not see a rabbit. The property was alive when he took it over, and it was now clean. The same day

they walked over Bailey’s property and they saw plenty. Mr. Hewitt: Did you get permission? —No. (Laughter.) To Mr. Hewitt, witness stated he milked 34 cows last year, and had two men for two years doing nothing but deal with rabbits. Mr. Hewitt: You heard the stock

insoector say that two months ago • property was alive ?—Yes. It has taken you two years to clean it?—Yes: it took Mr. Bailey twentyone to clean his. (Laughter). If Mr. Bailey’s property is alive then the fence will do vou good?— It- is not necessary. You have dirty land and a hill.

Yes; the hill belongs to the council. (Laughter). Do you say it is not all on your place ?—Oh, no, but the roughest belongs to the council. (Laughter). Charles Smith stated he had occupied his place at Tirau since April. He thought there was no need for the present action, and the repairs could have been fixed if Bailey had seen him. He was prepared to swear that a rabbit-proof fence would be ineffective. None of his stock had ever got on to Bailey’s place. Cross-examined, witness stated he knew nothing of a notice having been served on McLaren, the previous owner.

Mr. Hewitt?—You own pigs?— Yes. Are you sure they have not rooted up the fence?—Yes. Mr. Bailey is not the only one %vho thinks rabbit-proof fencing necessary?—Oh, they get these ideas into their heads but they soon get them out again. (Laughter). Malcolm McCorkindale, rabbiter, stated he did better on Bailey’s place than on Smith’s. Mr. Hewitt: You get better results trapping in open courtry, of course ? —Well, I don’t know. You ought to ; you’re an expert. Frank Wyatt and Frank James 1 both stated there were plenty of rabbits on Bailey’s block. Henry Haslett, a. belatedly-called witness for plaintiff, stated he had known the areas concerned over a period of 30 years. As an inspector for a stock company he had been on Bailey’s property every month for the past 5J years, and he considered his only chance of combatting the rabbit pest was by poisoning. Bailey had the biggest area of top-dressed land, while that outside the portion under discussion was broken country, which it would not pay to farm. Bailey was thus providing feed for all the rabbits in the country-side. It was not in his opinion possible to cope with the nuisance by any other means than fencing.

Mr. Bell: You have heard the evidence of the Government stock inspector?—Yes, but I don’t agree with it. Mr. Bell: Do you say Bottomley’s is not clean country ? —When I say “ clean ” I mean there are no rabbits there. The Magistrate: But you wouldn’t erect a rabbit-proof fence for one rabbit ? Mr. Hewitt: Yes; but two rabbits will breed two millions in two The Magistrate (quietly): Oh, I have heard all about that; but it is a mild pest. Mr. H.ewitt: A mild pest? I have a farm and I don’t find it so. I shall be the next in court with a similar application. In summing up, Mr. Hewitt again stressed the fact that the Act had been altered to provide for such cases as this one, and to protect men from dirty property. Before, a benefit to the other side- had to be shown, but this was not now the case, and though it appeared paradoxical to claim half the cost when there was possibly no benefit, there was good reason for it. Mr. Bell held the evidence proved that the pest could he dealt with by ordinary means, and that the amendment to the Act simply left more to the discretion of the court. The Bench then intimated that time would be necessary to review the evidence, and that the decision would be reserved.