Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

POLICE COURT.

Monday, 30th March.—Before Mr K. L. Stanford, S.M. Joseph 1 Bin-lay was fined 5s and costs for drunkenness. RAGWORT CASES. i Becij'imui Morris was charged with being the owner of u section of land and neglecting to k<ep down the ruewort and blackberries. He pleaded not guilty. Mr Kerr prosecuted and called Mr Rowan, Inspector under the Noxious Weeds Ac v , who stated that he made an inspection previously. It was in a vary bad condition. He served the usutl notice ; made a further icspsction on the 14th inst. The notice' was served on the 10th February. Defendant always promised to do something but nothing was don?. On2oh March he sent me a telegram saying he had began to clear the place. Joseph Hignett, an Inspector under the Noxious Weeds Act, stited that he mnde two inspections of Mr Mo ris' firm; had not been there since the 20th March. Mr Kerr sail that wis his cas \ Mr Morris was then sworn and sail the Jaod was his property and put in a leas 3 from her to another person.

To Mr K<rr: I am not the owner and never occupied tho land ; did not lead Mr Rowan to believe I was the owner. Irvine and Palmer havd noi thrown the leiso up; they went out in twelve months. Pitt his the right to put cattle on. His Wo'ship said he did not think it worth while to go on ; it was char the Cise again »t Morris must be dismissed.

Harold Collins pleaded guilty to the gam o offence. Mr R nvan gave evidence as to his inspsc ions and the condition of the place. To Mr Ool'ins: You had done something when 1 was last there, but not enough in my opinion. The S.M. said the defendant had pleaded guilty, He would be fined £5 and costs.

George Capper was also charged with failing to comply with the notice to clear his land of ragwort. Mr Kerr prosecuted, and called John Heslop, Inspector under the Noxious Weeds Act.

Mr Weston hare asked leave to protest against the case baiog set down for New Plymouth when there was a Oourt at logwood. His client had to bring three witnesses and owing to the time the cite was set down for, he had to specially hire a vahiole to get in time. If the Oourt at Inglewood was not to be used whit wa9 the use of it ?

Mr Kerr, in ivply, siid the Court only sat at Inglewood onca a month, and: thin cansed delay, which, at t'te time of the year when the we j ds wi>re in flnver, was most important. Hi also referred to the question of the convenience of the Inspactors.

Mr Weston emended that the farmers should be considerel before the inspectors, as the farmer if ha lost hid to pay. The Inspec'ors should consider the matter, and if the S.M. could not go ofcener to Inglewood he should be relieved of some of his numerous duties so that he could sit more often there.

The S.M. said he agreed with Mr Weston. In a civil case he could refuse to hear it, but would adjourn it to Inglewood. He knew tbe Department had the right to choose, but in this case he thought they had taken tbe wrong one. In future, esses should be taken at the nearest place, and he would refuse to hear them in New Plymouth. Mr Heslop then gave evidence of the state of the farm, the visits he had nwde, and the steps he had taken to induje defendant to get it cUar. To Mr Weston: Defendant's place is close to Franklyn'a place. Oinnot say if it was at his (defendant's) instance that Fraoklyn was proceeded against. He has done a good deil of work, but Cinnot say that he has done wh*t he might have done. Mr Rowan, Inspector, said, in consequenca of a letter he recaive'l, he inspected defendant's place and saw him. He said he would attend to it, but he (witness) did not consider ha had t'tken adequate steps to cope with the nuisance.

Joseph Hignett gave evidence corroborating the evidence of the previous witness.

Mr Weston opened his case, and held that the evidence of the three inspectors did not show the case was a bad one. The Act was a very bar6h one, which should be menifully administered by those charged with its administration. He called

Gorge Oapper, defendant, who g »va evidence of the lease and purchase of his farm and the continuous fight he had had to keep the weeds down, especially near Franklyn's. Every tffirt had been made by him and his family to kep the weeds down. Duriog harvest he had to reduc6 the labour on his farm to wotk the harvest. La»t year he had spent £iO for labour in keeping down the weeds. They were diminishing every year and will not ba effectually cleared till ploughed; but tbat was a slow procoss because of the stumps. Had put kill weed on bus lost five calves. Had worked Sundays and weekdays on it and had done all he could afford. 1 To Mr Kerr: Understood Mr Bo (van had a complaint that the ragwort was in flower. Recognised thi need of stopping it from flowering and had done all he could.

' William Hill gave evidence that he had gone over the farm four times hince November. Mr Oapper had also employed other labour. Had worked himself and the members of his family. In cross-ex iniination witness said he sometimes cleaned the milk cans and the stock yard, this occupied him a couple of hours. George Bowler said the weeds were very bad. Hill was continually cutting weed* on the farm. The ragwort gre-v very fast. There was no doubt the seeds went from Fratiklyn'a pkee all over the couutry. Had spent a lot of money on his own place keeping weeds down.

In cross-examination, he said he hid not been over Oappei 'a place lately, but the wesds were cut all i<long his fence.

A witness named Mirtin also gave evidence that tver since November, Oappsr hud done all that was possible. The S.M. s<il be thought the defendant had dous a good deal to clear bis farm, though perhaps there was t something wanting. The Act threw a vary grave responsibility on him of deciding in tbesjcose?, which were undoubtedly hard on the aattlnre, who h*d a very difficult task. He thought a fine of lOi in this ciee would meet it. Af<;>;r some argument between Council, a second charge relating to blackberries was withdrawn. Mr Oappor promising to do all in his power to cope with the trouble.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19030331.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 78, 31 March 1903, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,125

POLICE COURT. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 78, 31 March 1903, Page 2

POLICE COURT. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 78, 31 March 1903, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert