R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 979, 20 January 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

'*'' /'•-■-■ ""."~4 '■ '.'.''•• i ', .. • pßeforo-H. S. Wakdbu, Esq,,R;M,r"; NEHSON AND OTHERS V M'LEOD. ;,- Hia-Worship gave judgment iathe above'.: case after, considering the evidence with; ! -Mr W.H/Beetham,J.P. He stated that he: had on the previous ocoaskm..,when the ' case was heard expressed the opinion that through the .conflicting nature, of, the evidence it would<bo better to appoint ;twb;, indepefident-.witneaßßS to go and examine the graund-wiere the contract for outting ; , the : bush was;to-haVe-been carried out.: The' plaintiffs" hkd:bali^-. and distinctly; isivofrP'Uwt the : 'work 'n'ajyieen performed ; according to contract, .'aidithat. every tree*; over three feet in circumference had been" that' defendant ;h'ad expressed his satisfaction' with the •JvVqHt -done.., A s■■ a proof' 6f <thia they - stated; the'; fact tfrat' the" defendant had paid them Some; JBO .pnacco'unt.,: The defendant,-on-'the other, hand, swore that: he had fied; that trees'had? been leflstanding which should have been felled ;:. ; and; that theundergrowtU-h^;ho^b'een ; these circumstances twoerabna-tMeaW'': 0. J. Freeth amfciftfs'herf) Mi- Vim} iappointed to go wer.-ihe-grbund{£and' though they had noVmyiio.cotnpl'ete all examination as could have been\vrtshed, : their evidence shewed' that',there\?|f.er.6ra ; - large nuuibor of trees leftstanding; jbaj, should have been out,; : accord]h| , --to'.tno"been qui, th'e'trees -haying been- fallen on to the utidersonb, and nothing done to) it. The plaintiffs had particularly.mentioned that the supplejacks had been out, but it appeared from evident that they, : had only been cut sufficiently to give room for using the axe. From the evidence of Messrs Forsberg and Freeth it was clear that the contract was not comi pleted. ,It might, be urged that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover for the contract, less a deduction for work they had not performed; But- the contradiotory eyidenqe did not justify him in giving .tjip'the benefit,of this viep,.as heoould[notpqisioly'arrive at the value of the work which remained to be done. Under'these-circuinstance'rHis - ifprshipV felt he must non-suit the plaintiffs and,, leave them to comple'tV tlieir contraot,'of make suph other arrangflments ap, tjiey could with the'dpfendfini, \" , Mr Beard; Does the,6our(i holt] that they cannot recover 'foy.what has already; been done without completing the whole. contraot? His Worship: Yea. •' BABBIT PARES .'% A ; .,'P,Sut(BDi Eabbit Inspector v Joseph Bennett,—Breach of the Babbit Act, 1881, Seotibn 16,' Mr Bunny for prosecution, Mr Beard for defendant, who pleaded "not guilty." • Mr' Bunny, in.opening thecase, said the action was laid in consequence of Mr Bennett having failed to take, efficient steps to destroy rabbits on his property after having reppived notice to do so. He hoped'the GoWt'wQuld not be fjujcjed by ihe number 'of rabbits' k the pfopeVty'i but by the fact that no steps had ;! been taken' to' destroy those that'were there,' Hia Worship' agreed Wiih 1 this View; \V, A,'!?. Sutton deposed; lam Babbit Inspector' fortjte''tya]rarjpa ! pfttrjot,' I . have delivered 'notfceVUnder Section Jo" of the Babbit Act, one'being served on. the defendant. Mr Beard: Did you give the notice yourself? Witness: I instructed the notice to be served. I did so because I had reason- to. Relieve tj)at the/e were' rabbits oft'liis b'-operty, : rind/ that 'he;' was not k'illiug them, Mr W. Smith, served the notice. I'have mad|e no personal inspection of the property since serving of the notice, and am po'f spre personally wljat defendant ljaf doije'lq' Qgßtfojr |he rabbits since receipt of police, ~ ,-'"■• To Mr Beard I The instruction to serve ) the notice"was. on 'the?Bthbf Novenber. | was on Mr Bennett's ground before the notice was ipryedi' '..;,. ■■■ To Mr Bunny ; I have received information as to what Mr Bennett'has done j also that tl]e rabbits arq as nuinerpus'as hofore' tl)p iiqtigo wfts given, J, Wallace Smith deposed; f'had pertain notices given to me to serve on certain landowners under Section 16 of the Babbit Aot, \ served one fin Mr'B.ennett oiMhVph of ffoveiphpr. [Blpok of notice produced]. .:■.::• '' vV - His Worship did not.reoognlw that witness was (he proper.custiidian of t!)o. notices | he merely had power to enter upon lands to see, if were. ikfitfl. " '■':",' ■■■■.'-':'. Mr Bunny«argued that such person was the proper custodian of the notice book,' {hough nqt specially mentioned by' the Aot in that capacity.' Witness continued : I was on Mr Bennett's property on the same day that I served the notice, and I saw the rabbits were very numerous on the lower portion of th't)'property, on (he leff hand side going to the faqeru. j visited the property again on the Ist of January, • 1882, to inspeot it ( and took a .note of • what 1 saw, The rabbits were still, very numerous, all part's of : the property on this, ocoaaion,- and shouldsay very little had- been donetb destroy the rabbits, Mr Bennett told me he had. had a boy killing, but'he had left, and he waa about 'P employs regular rabbitter.He mt practically;dpj.ng'nothirig at tfeat •' time.tq reduce thj? rabbjts. The area of of the property was-about 2,300 acres. One man might keep down the breeding, power, but oould pot reduce the rabbits, on suoh an extent bf;ground. Ihave.not •visited-the property since the Ist J anuarv. ' To Jf r Beard J :T'a'm.sure' I visited' the iland on the Ist'. TsoWlmej inspected 'land on Sunday. along the toad through the pr,qpflrty ..befpre. serving -theriotice, : whioh was,served- on instruction from Mr Button. Mr Sutton had ■' 'inspected the land "himself, I did not go to inspeot the property but' to serve the notice, Could say the rabbits had not decreased on the Ist January. Mr Bennett has informed me that he has now a oompetent killer and uses bV sulphide of, carbon, but it would take a long time to get the rabbits down on .Mr Bennett's.property, even with theaja means. The bl-sulphide is-very effeotive. I am not aware of any. other ofepa being; 'taken by Mr Bennett,. I should thinker' Bennett's rabbits aremostly bred on:hiT .own! land; •.Babbits, however, travel a great" deal, Mr' Bennett is putting up rabbit proof fenoing between himself and. neighbors, and has fallen a lot of bush. _ 1 Mr Bunny submitted that, the ,faot of Mr Bennett ereoting rabbit proof fencing and falling busti was proof .of faking steps to destroy the rabbits, His Worship thought that falling bush" and olearing aorub on land were very; imporhnt preliminary steps towards exterminating the pest, ■ "He'asked, witness bis opinion on'that point. \\ ■''- {'-. Witness: It certainly is a great step towards that end,.but I should .poison first wherever it could be ..done, and-out the bush and scrub sufficiently to poison thoroughly.. .-1 ', .'■ To Mr Bunny ; Poison could reduce the rabbits to very small numbers on Mr Bennett's ground.; i- ,_•.;:. ;'. To the Court: .The weather had been unfavorable for poisoning from November to January, but on: Mr Bennett'.s .lapdi. ; think it would.have been effective .o.wjng to the short '/eedVan'dvi the "humbey 7 of rabbits therer. 'PhosphorJMd grain'ij the DJ«t' poison, Osnpts prepared with •arlppfe'tsvi) totbm tp far

■iial-'knnw, but it has hot been extensively tried in ray district '"This closed the case for the proseou- •- ■ • ' tion. ,; Mr Beard submitted the case must fall -' through as it had not that - - r defendant's property was in the Wairarapa,. district. '•'■' v *k * His Worship was under ; the impression this had been admitted,, and <he, had it so ■ in his notes. '{. 'h' "::Mr Beard stated it, had not;-, been .admitted, and had not been, proved, Mr Bunny held that he - was admitted he would allow it'totgpj^^ ■ Mr Bunny understood all the.'jpiun- ■ nary proofs' were admitted. -j •; ■'!' y :.Mr, Beard, then submitted 'lhe must fall-tb,roagh on other-groundsM Mr Suttoß hsd'stated in evidence that it was : not from personal knowledge that he gave ••- ' instructions to his amenta to Berve ■ ' notice, but"-.; from the report* 'of those agents; and the agent not'jhspected the : property bbfdrev Serving notice. ""' " ;.'";' ■ VvThe Court stated that,-.Mr Siittpn had ' not admitted that 'theproperty. •'!';,■ ; ~., ;:J, . :i Mr Beardi.iirjdjrßtood him to.say so. ■He would hold, however, that-the whole p'rboeb'diiig : ,'wa's made ou ■■ the', lay not ; recognißing4rryi»fficifl'l-.Hct;iperfprrned on • ,a,Sundayj .also-,tha,t r Mr Smith M.not - ;a'n^;liis :^6si&ff^? i in ,(thei.Oourt. ,;._: ' ' " ■'" -'V' v '-:,'"". -; : ?HiVWorship thought if a criminal aot . was witnessed on. "a Sunday, it •yjould not i make. the. incbmpeteqty tp; give i/evidebce,"' |''. ■"■'.""" '■''.'.', 4 ,' ; held, the different, the preseht-was.a quasi-crimi-nal, action. He held ; fhat'ohV : Jauthorised inspectoreould.give .the,n'eces-■sai-y evidence. "'* ::*;?>''''. '■. ' 'After further argument His Worship ruled that even if a. man wereja trespasser . on.land he could as; to what be. Baw thereon; ;'','V ~j' Mr, Beard then called Mr Suton,','wbo. v :,., i. depose'dVjle bad made the inspection Mrß'eiinett'B la,pd about. a_. vyeek the notice wag giveq. ' Bq, wit's/; qnlthe, ' limestone kills, and m a great many could' see the lanq ■ 'Cfinl|aqtl.V - /. "did' not tbini it 'hecesßary tq revisit \\ *'after tw fifgt (jisppotiqn:''''''' ■ Joseph Beqnett calledi deposed \ I anj defendant in this received a I notice, but could nbfaaV';on what 4ay, . Not anticipating to be called to Couvti I ■ did not take notice of datea.. I have m ployed a man with ferrets. and a paqk of about 80 dogs, and have also been using bi<Bu]pliate of carbon, apt! stopping up the burrows. The rabbitter lias been on, about three weeks. He obtained, on an . | average, 150 rabbits per day, but what H" number were .smothered in the; holes; it ' 1 was impossible to sqy. I have had felled about 80 aores ot sorub aud bush, so as to ' deal more effectually with the rabbits, and have also, in-course of construction 1 about a mile of paling feh.ce.between Mr Moore and'myself, The'bush ha.s about'tlio Sam'e.' t my la'nd' ,V ~ fence'd 'with I 'i)aling]feDc6,'to'''Koep;qt])'e'r; 'jieoplels my opinion i| is impossible to deafly t|| : rabbjts wjth6}!t clejifljig the'tn'sh." fhev| are two men oil nowt aM I intend ge|tin| : anotliev as soon m possible, Good men ' have been hard to get, and I . a suitable one sooner than I did. To Mr Bunny: A young man who had been with me Tot three years left suddenly, I put another mm op aa I oqujp] get Twas tV.Vifig to go) on* 1 betbre tue fiotioe'-' had 'certainly m'dre" fling" during ahetii*-" irig time, and incre'ased'a'good deal, ruie'd the bi-sutphide myself, and'my 'boy was abo'Ut with" dogs 1 while M^*T : f MM ftffi ? ?JR taking effidienf'steps. The rabbits were reduced to a ininimum in the spring, bu^ they have increased all'oyer the 'country, lately. T(iere'is no use 'Quibbling' 9;Mk 1 ■%),' Myyo^^gfi'^t^^Vmb^lffl ■: :wp'obta,inea ffqiiithe vau.b%r, who is ff reliable man.' ' " '"".'" 1 To Mr Beard: Sta were being taken, / during flie iuterval, when no i - employpd. jjy pep(|ng paiipg' fences aijfl cjearing the bqslj app; 'spvu^.' This was thp oas,p. His Worship said' he must convict th,a defendaut, 88 step's, hid. no( been Mm within thp time specified by Jaw. A penalty would be inflicted of £4 and costs, Mr Beard said that actually defendant : had been fined because he could not perform an impossibility. "",; A similar Otao. against John McKen. zie was atljouvneu to next Bitting, owing to the illness ot