MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9998, 19 March 1910, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MASTERTON -FRIDAY. (Before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M.) FAILING TO POISON RABBITS. Thomas Charles Webb, Inspector of Rabbits, proceeded against Tioi Wa°ka for faili' g to take proper proceedings for poisoning the rabbits on his propertv. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty.

Informant, in giving evidence, said he had inspected defendant's property in December, 1909, and found it infested with rabbits. He inspected it attain on January 15th arti ]7h, asici found the country in a simikr state.

On February 9th witness made at;oiher inspection and found that defenda' t had only done a small patch. The rabbits were still very numr-r.'us. Witne-s also got defendant to promise to lay poison on the boundary between himself anJ Nitz on a certain date, the latter laying poii-'in on the same day. Defendant had nut done so.

James Rankin, Inspector of Rabbits, Masterton, rorroborated the evidence of the previous witnes-. He considered the months of January and February eminently suited for the purposes of poisoning. k . Sydney Charles Ivens, Inspector of Rabbits, South Wairarapa, had made several inspections of the property, and had noticed that a little poison had been laid along the flats. If defendant had poisoned at the same time that Nitz poisoned, the results must have been exceptionally good. Mr Webb stated that the Department made the poison and gave it to the Natives here, and that there was therefore no excuse for them. Mr Pownall submitted that the information ought to be dismissed on purely technical grounds. Mr Webb had not proved his appointment as inspector, nor had he proved the area of the land. The Act provided that the penalty should be awarded according to the area of the land, and no judgment could thus be delivered until the area had been proved. His Worship said he was loth to dismiss the information on a technical point, as this neglect to poison was a serious matter. In view of the point raised, however, with regard to the area of the property, he could not do otherwise. The information would be dismissed without prejudice.

NOMINAL FINES

A similar charge was laid against Joe Faku. Thomas Charles Webb stated that each time he inspected the property the rabbits were numerous. On February 13th he made a further inspection and found nothing done.

James Rankin gave corroborative evidence. Mr Pownall submitted that Paku not being the owner of the property was not liable. It wuuld be proved, however, that Paku had taken .steps to poison the rabbits."

Joe Paku stated that he was looking after the property, which was his aunt's, From March to November, 1909, he had a rabbiter and a pack of dogs constantly on the place. He went to the Inspector's office to procure poison about January lltb. Defendant had oeen takea up to informant's office, and asked to allow th.e. officer? of the Department to lay tha poisoii. Wiciieis asked W'ho Was going to pay for it, to which informant, it Was alleged, replied that he supposed witness would. About a fortnight afterwards, when he called at the It specter's office, he was refused the poison. A few weeks witness came in aeain, and got the poison two or three days before he was summoned. He took the steps to l.iy it as soon as it was received.

By Mr Webb: Witness was authorised by his relatives to procure the poison, and had been told to carry out the poisoning. He received 60fbs of poison altogether, and commenced poisoning on February 2nd. Tu'ho Wainohu, a neighbour, of the previous witness, s>iid they commenced laying poisjn on February 2nd, and continued for three days, when they stopped owing to the death of a 1 Maori

By Mr' Webb: They got the poison free oil? charge from the Department, and had never been refused. The rabbits were still very numerous on the property in question. Mr Pownall asked His Worship to reserve his decision till the other cases were heard, which was agreed to. A similar charge against Piripi Waaka was next heard. Thomas Charles Webb gave evidence as to inspecting the property, consisting of 1,000 acres in December, January and February, and found rabbits very numerous. James Rankin gave corroborative evidence. He saw poison on February 13th in Joe Waaka's whare which was unopened. Sydney Charles Ivens, Rabbit Inspector, South Wairarapa, stated that he saw a patch of poison on the native property at the lower end, but none at the boundary. It had been a very bad year for rabbits, and it was certainly most essential that efforts should be made to keep the pest down, Exceptisnally good work had been done on the South Wairarapa boundary. Mr Lavery submitted that his client had taken reasonable steps to lay tbe poison. He had laid all the poison required to be laid, and all they had received. Piripi Waaka stated that he used the poisun that was sent to him. On one occasion it came on to rain, and the poison had to be done all over again. When he sent for poison it was not sent, and he coufd do no more.

Joe Paku stated that from his boundary he saw four of defendant's m«n at different times laying the poison. He had seen rabbits on the property in question.

His Worship stated that according to the evidence of the defence efforts had been made to lay poison, but the question arose was what they did sufficient? He did not think so. A light penalty, however, would meet the case and wouJd also serve as a warning. A fine of 20a and costs would be imposed in this case, and in the previous one.

Similar fines were, also, imposed in the case against James Joseph "Kennedy, and in that of James Sneddon Rankin, Rabbit Inspector, Masterton, v. Jamea John Rice.

A TECHNICAL BREACH.

Michael J. ulune was charged with bringing liquor into the No-Liceme area of Masterton withGUt giving the name and address of the person for whom ir was intended. Mr C A. Pownall appeared for accused. Sergeant Miller stated that Ciure was a blacksmith carrying on business in Masterton, and on 10th January sent for four gallons of be* r, two for himself and two for another person named E. Henderson, whose address was n"t given. William Burridge, brewer, staled that on January 10th accused s. Nt for four gallons of beer, two of which were for himself and two for a man named E. Henderson. Witness did not know who Henderson was. By Mr Pownall: The order f.-T the liquor was posted, and witness knew the liquor was intended for the No-Licerjse area. There was no attempt at concealment, as the liquor had been duly sent through the Clerk of the Court.

Ernest Henderson gave evidence as to having authorised Clune to procure two gallons of beer for him. His Worship stated that'no doubt a technical breach had been committed by the defendant having omitted to put the word Masterton on the order. Beyond that he did not think there had been any inten'ion to break the law, The case would be dismissed.

A FINE IMPOSED.

John A. Leahy wa3 charged with having given an order on account of another person for liquor intended to be taken into the no-license dierrict of Masterton, and failing \u give a statement in writing of the name and address of such other person.

I Defendant was unrepresented by I counsel, and pleaded not guilty I Frederick Silvers, barman, Ciub i Hotel, Carterton, stated that defendant purchased 7 gallons of beer and signed and paid i'or it. Sergeant Miller stated that at 6 pm. on February 28th defendant came to the police station and had a conversation with him. As a result of this witness went to Mrs Neilsuns boarding house, and stated in her presence that the cask in the house had been procured by him. Mrs Neilson then admitted that she *.uve defendant the money to get ihe liquor John Alfred Leahy said he ordered the liquor in his own name. Mr* Neilson gave him the horse and trap and the money for the liquor. ) His Worship said the law was very I plain in.the matter, and defendant ! should have known better. A fine of £5 and costs would be imposed.

DISMISSED.

A similar charge was preferred against Jeannie Leahy.

Defendant was unrepresented and pleaded not guilty. William tfurridge, brewer, stated that Mrs Neilson and Mrs Leahy drove to Carterton together. Mrs Leahy paid and signed for the liquor, which as far as he knew was for her.

Sergeant Miller stated the reason given by Mrs Leahy for signing for the liquor was that Mrs Neilson could not write.

Jeannie Leahy stated that on the date in question Mrs Neilson asked her to go to Carterton for a drive. Witness knew nothing about the beer except that Mrs Neilson handed her the money and a book w«is given to her to sign.

His Worship stated that there wa§ a alight element of doubt in this case. Both the women were in the trap, at the time the liquor was bought, and it was possible that Mrs Neilson might have made usd of defendant without her knowledge. On the other hand Mrs Leahy might have put her name to the because she knew Mrs Neilson could not write. He would give defendant the benefit of the doubt, and warn her to. be more careful in future. The case was accordingly dismissed. KEEPING LIQUOR FOR SALE.

Kate Neilson was charged with keeping liquor for sale in the nolicense area of Masterton about January 24th. Sergeant Miller gave evidence as to having searched the premises and found two kegs of beer. He also found a number of empty whiskey cases in a dummy cellar.

By Mr Pownall: It would surprise him to learn "that the cellar Had been there for many years. Jeannie Leahy, a boarder at the house, said she got liquor about three times in her own name. She had seen people on the premises the worse for liquor, and a good deal of drinking was carried on.

Corroborative evidence was' given by John Alfred Leahy. Kate Neilson, defendant in the case, said she had never sold any of the beer that had been brought to her house. On one occasion she had given Mrs Leahy tie money to purchase a five gallon keg, but she denied that either of the two kegs produced in Court was the one.

Alexander McKinnon, drover, said that the two gallons of beer found in the house had; been ordered by him for his own consumption. His Worship stated that he did not think it would be difficult to arrive at a decision in the case. Evidently a lot of hard drinking had been carried on, but the amount did not appear to be excessive. The only circumstance which raised a doubt in his mind was the tact of Mrs Neilson getting the beer under another name. That, however, was hardly sufficient to justify conviction, and the case would be dismissed, the liquor to be returned.