POLICE COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 715, 12 March 1881, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

© r~ MASTERTON, THURSDAY. [Before; H. S. Esq., KM. Masterton Rabbit Trust v. R. Hare.— Breach of rabbit Act. Mr Beard for plaintiff. R.' Campbell called by Mr Beard* deponed-that he could not swear whether anotic'o to destroy rabbits, dated Oct. Qth, was .served on Mr Hare personally, or left, at his house, it was bno or the other; The notice .was.tp destroy rabbits, (in answer to Mr ■ Hare), witness visited defendant's land at Ran»itutMU and observed poison laid there. '.. Ha .believed that -he subsequently told defendant that it was no use laying; mere poison, as the weather was netting 160 hot for ifcibo be of any use. While; he was inspeotor he had no fault to And with the action of the defendant, with •respect to destroying l rabbits He ceased to be Inspector, on the Bth of January. In, ontfor two of his reporra-he believed that' he thought defendant-had-been a little backward in destroying rabbits I.'■-, ,-.,.. • The ..Court .said., with' reference to a letter .which, had; been published; in the ■WAittABAPA Daily,:tfere'seemed to.be a confused-potM to'Avliat constituted efficient 1 steps;sThe ■ writer evidently askMecl ■ thatjf ati Inspeotor brought a case foVward the Magistrate had. no 'alternative hut to inflict:a-'penaUyi Ho had over and over again said that such was not the case,though ho almost wished it was* but the

responsibility lay with the Court, and not with the Inspector. ;If a defendant had not carried out the instructions of.an Inspector, he had only to Satisfy -the Court, that the step's that had-been taken were efficient, The:Aqi did not make the. Inspector's opinion' final,; h'e>' sometimes ■. wished it.did, as the matter of proof Waavery- difficult.. The: opinion of "the Inßpector l ,of ; cour3e;carxiedgreßt J w.eii(ht,! But it'was'not conclusive; It was/open to" any defendant to show, that he had taken efficient,, steps, notwithstanding that the Inspector might bi hostile to him."' Neither, the Inspector, nor the Trustees hav'ethe power, of :aictatin« to a landowner .what stops he should take. ' .-■■ .v >• ' R. Campbell; in answer to defendant'."After Igave'you notice you took in my opinion efficient-steps to des troy- mbbita.". Defendant's sons went up. to Karjgituruau .with guns and dogs and did their utmost. 'I do not know to what-extent they.were successful.: The .property.' contains 295 acres','- ■'"'.. "

lii answer to Mrßeard-I served the nati.cu .in October, since serving tlie notice Imay have been on'the proper ty "twice.. I don't remember reporting to the Trustees: that defendant.was :.ript' taking' efficient steps after giving the notice/' The Trustees asked Witness to resign. ■.'; Mr Beard-Do-you consider, he took efficient.steps between the time.of the notice being served, and the time when you resigned? "■ ;."= :./ ■'.-..;••■

. : ,Wittfess-I believe he .did for a ; short time,'.biit I can't say'what happened after. I visited the/property on ;tke-ilthof November-Babbits' more numerous then)but Mr flare.was •taking-steps., to destroy them..; It was a'hard matter to say what" the; Trustees considered was necessary—or what was necessary' to "destroy thu rabbits. -- "., ,

The Court pointed out that it was.an oversight in. framing the Act that no Inspector was recognised in its clauses nor were the duties of one dofined.

Witness-As: a matter of opinion he thought it was hececsary to keep a man constantly hunting about the piace. But he thought it would be very hard on the owner to keep a man on like that. Witness thought that the late Trustees had been too stringent in some cases. Mr Beard said his position was a difficult one as he had had to call a hostile witness to prove his case.

H. Bannister deposed, that, since the Bth January, Mr HareVsons had been at Rangitutuau, but the rabbits.were increasing on the place.' A man would'want to be, there constantly to deal efficiently with them. He did not consider that Mr Hare had taken efficient steps. He had visited the property on the following dates l&th Jan. 4th Feb, and loth Feb. and oil neither of the occasions had he found any. dne there.

In answer, to dofehdant In my report of the 17th I stated that the Rangitumau was well hunted with dngs and guns, but I referred to Mr Stuckoy's property, not to Mr Hare's. Subsequently witness roporl'ed that satisfactory stops had been taken generally, in tlw neighborhood, but had not made a special reference to defendant's property.

John Hare had on several occasions ggno. up ■to Rangitumnu with dogs and gun to kill rabbits. On the first occasion he was there 3 days, on the second ocoasioii.l day. His brothers had also been there. His brother and himself, laid 1001b of poison there last spring, '■'',' In answer to Mr Board—Hia father might have told him that he had had a notice from the Inspector, and must clear off the rabbits. He thought ho did remember something of the sort taking place. .

Tho Court said the question it had to decide was whether efficient steps had been taken.' Tho only stops it understood to havo been takon wore occasional visits from defendant's sons, hut that was certainly not its idea of efficient steps. The minimum penalty pf £'l, and ,30s costs, would be inflicted, as the Court did not desire by'a heavy One to cripple a landowner from vigorously destroying his rabbits^

The defendant objected to paying tile solicitors expenses: he thought the Trustees should find the money for their own lawyer, The Court was not at all sure that it was tight for the rates to be 6penfc on legal fees, •

Mr Beard pointed out that the Act was a complicated one, and the Board, required legal assistance in conducting cases under it.