RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. MASTERTON.-THURSDAY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1012, 2 March 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. MASTERTON.-THURSDAY.

g Before H. S.Wardell, Esq., R.M.,and E, Toomath, J.P. r STRAY HORSE, • Ingram v E.'Hare.-Breach of Borough ' by-laws—allowing a horse to stray. The prosecutor said he believed that P the horee belonged to the father of the ( defendant, Ifwas a sort of family horse. ! The Court, in the absence of definite proof of ownership, dismissed the charge, SUNDAY LIQUOR TKAFfIC. : Constable Flemming v C. F. Worth,— • Breach of Licensing Act, on 26th day of ! February, by selling liquor during unlawi' fulhourß. i Sergt, MoArdle deposed: That about 11 ) a.m. on Sunday, last he entered the Royal i Hotel. About six persons were at the ) bar having drinks, and Mr Worth was i behind the bar. The persons were from i the Tinui distriot. In answer to defendent: When dcfen- , dant said they were cricketors from Tinui , witness said he knew that. Did not reI member Mr Worth. saying they were I travellers from Tinui. Defendant said there were only five persons present. He admitted selling re- , freshments to them on their distiuot assurance that they were travellers from ; Tenui. Had he refused to Berve them he was liable for an indictment for not sup- | plying them.' The Court: Did you suppose that the answer they gave was a sufficient one! They might have said they came from England. Defendant quoted the Act to Bhow that all that wbb necessary was to prove that he truly believed them : to be travellers. ( If there was any fault it was a misrepresentation on the part of the persons in question. The Court could not take the view the defendant asked it to take. It could not believe that defendant took proper steps to ascertain that the persons m question were bona fide travellers. •.Constable Fleming deposed that he ac- . companied the sergeant on his visit to the house. Defendant told the sergeant that the present were the cricketers from Tenui. ' He knew as a matter of fact that two of them slept in Masterton on the preceding night, • The Court pointed out to defendant that the onus of showing that the persons were bona fide travellers and that ho took proper steps to ascertain the fact whether they .were, rested on him. Defendant asked for an adjournment as the decision of the Court was an important one. He desired to call the witnesses from Tenui to save a conviction being endorsed on his license, The Court intimated that the witnesses from Tenui would not help the case. It would be at the option of the Court to i endorse a conviction on the license. The sergeant pointed out that the en- ( dorsement on the license in the present | case would be compulsory. , The defendant asked that his character | as a Licensed Victualler might be inquired ( The Court said there was nothing J against his character. It was quite pre- , Pared to make the penalty a minimum one ( | of £l, but it could not dismiss the case. < A single endorsement on a license was not ( a very serious matter, but it would be if f the offence were repeated. i Constable Fleming v. 0. H. Osborne, , of the Mulgrave Hotel.—Breach of the , Licensing Act by having his bar door open i on Sunday, the 26th inst. t Defendant said h« had closed the door, a but it had been opened by some' traveller a and he had forgotten to close it again, ,

Constable Fleming deposed that on Sunday afternoon at 3.30 he saw the door to the bar standing open. He passed again at 6 p.m. The door was still open. . Defendant; Don't you think, Mr War■dell, it would have been more kind for the constable to have warned me on the first occasion, particularly as I am a new hand? . The . Court: It would have been still more kind for the constable to olose his eyes altogether.. •' The defendant aßked to be excused, as he did not properly understand the Act. : The Court said the Sergeant could, if he thought proper, withdraw the charge. The Sergeant said he could not withdraw the charge, but asked the Court to deal as leniently as poßsible.with.it. The Court fined defendant Is and costs. Defendant Supposing I, shut up my house altogether, as I .would like to do, every Sunday, am 1 liable,to a penalty] The Court: Twenty pounds. ■ Defendant: I had better Sell out, RABBITS OH I Sutton ,v Isaac Orippj.—Breach of Rabbit Act—failing to take efficient steps to destroy rabbits. Mr Bunny appeared for plaintiff. W. A, P. Sutton, Inspector of sheep, deposed That he had reason to believe that efficient steps were not taken by the defendant to keep down his rabbits, and therefore served a notice upon him. Jameg Harvey stated that he was authorised to enter upon lands, and in that capacity visited Mr Oripp's land' on the Opaki, Prior to the 11th of January the rabbits on the property were very numerous, He visited the property again on the 20th of February, and found the rabbits still as numerous as on the ocoasion of his former visit. Defendant said his property compared favorably with adjoining properties as regarded rabbits. James Scorer, farmer, residing on the Opaki a mile from defendant's property, said thai since the 11th of January he had visited the property once or twice a week. Last Sunday he was there and killed twenty. He received £5 a year from Mr Cripps for killing his rabbits. He laid poison in September last. He had only used a gun twice; He relied principally on digging out the holes. Rabbits were numerous now all over the country, He had the skins and made good wages out them. He hunted rabbits for the Bake of the skins, and of the carcases lor the pigs. The Court said the case was a curious one, being a small property surrounded by larger ones. It felt that it was an unfortunate thing for a man in such a position being operated upon without information to the neighboring properties. The evidence showed that the. individual neiilect of the defendant was less than that of others in his vicinity, It was difficult to measure the neglect without knowing better the state of the surroundin" side. 0

J. Harvey jun,,. staled that Messrs Bruce and Morrison were the neighbors of defendant, The former held 300 acres and the latter 600. Bruce had very few rabbits and Morrison's property was clear land with no cover for the rabbits, the defendant's land was the property which harbored the rabbits. Three week's regular work was in his opinion necessary to keep down the rabbits. The Court inflicted a fine of £1 and costs. Sutton v John Valentine Smith.— Breach of Babbit Act by failing to take efficient steps to destroy rabbits on his property in the Whareama. Mr Bunny for the informant, and Mr Beard for the defendant. W. A, P. Sutton, Inspector of Rabbits, deposed that he served a notice to destroy rabbits on the defendant, fin answer to Mr Beard.) The notice was written out by Mr Smith and signed by himself. The notice produced was written by Mr Moore. "It is either one or the other." Mr Bunny - The witness is trapped. Witness! I have signed no blank notices; that is what Mr Board wants to know. I know Grassendale. It is the homestead. I understand the term to apply to the whole of the run. I know the homestead to bo Grassendale and I know Waitawhiti, which is higher up on the hills to the north-west. I do not know whether Mr Smith has any property called by another namo. 1 know Taniwha, but understand that Grassendale includes it. I never inspected the run for rabbits, I was over it last month. I saw a few rabbits on that, occasion. | Wallace Smith deposed that he was authorised to enter land by the Rabbit Inspector. Babbits were scattered all over the Grassendale, Waitawhiti, Taniwha, aud the middle run. The properties were in one block of 16,000 acres. Witness visited this land on Decemper Ist and on December Bth, and found the rabbits established but not numerous. On January 19th he sorved a notice on Mr Dillon, the manager of the defendant. He considered thiit four rabbiters were required to be constantly employed on defendant's run to keep down the rabbits, The Court: The witness is not an experfc.uuder the statute and his opinions are only of a limited value.

The witness in answer to Mr Beard ; said he lmd never seen many rabbits on , the property, on one occasion on a ride of i nine miles over the run he only saw one rabbit. He saw droppings and scratohings all over the run which led him to the conclusion that the numbers were not being reduced by the one man employed , If half-a-dozen men had been employed he could not necessarily have detected whether the rabbits were reduqect within a period of a few days. Was of opinion from 12 to 20 rabbits could be caught in one day by one person, Was authorised to give information to rabbit Inspector.; Defendant's land was pretty evenly infested, From personal inspection knew rabbits had not been decreased during the seven days, Four men on the whole run ought to keep the rabbits in check, - By Mr Bunny,—Went from the Taniwho to Grassendale about 2 p.m, Rabbits would not be about at that time. It would take four or five rabbiters constantly employed to keep the rabbits in check. Rabbits would increase if only one rabbiter were employed. Travelled over the land Subsequently and saw a great many more rabbits. This closed the case for plaintiff, J. V.Smith, defendant, deposed in January last visited the property. Started from homestead on 7th. to north-eastern boundary of run, about 9 miles,. It was not Cool day, and if rabbits were about would be sure to be seen. Saw Mr W. Smith then. Returned for homestead absut two o'clock in company with Mr W, Smith. Was looking out sharply for rabbits, Getting nearer home Mr W. Smith took up some rabbit dung to show that rabbits existed there, Said to him that they had not seen any rabbits, , If Mr W, Smith saw any did not direct his attention to them,_ Next day (Bth) went a different direction. Did not see any rabbits. On day after took still another direction, but saw no rabbits, Did not inspect Waitewliiti as rabbits were admitted to be scarce there. Did not see a single rabbit on that occasion, Did not receive any caution or warning that he was not taking sufficient steps. On 17th January, Mr W. Smith left notice at residence. Always kept guns and poison on his ran, bit where rabbits were" considered so scarce did not attempt to use poison. After receiving notice engaged another rabbiter at once. My, son also -hunted with gun and dogs. Had not-been orer the land since receiving the notiee. .'

By Mr Bunny: Babbits had; been on Ji the run for throe years. Only had one | regular rabbiter employed previous to re* t ceiving notice. 'Had a good deal of ex- *■ perience in hunting rabbits. Thomas Dillon, manager for defendant, deposed; Had been manager for 6 years. There was always someone killing rabbits previous to receiving notice. Witness often went out with gun and dogs. After receiving notice another rabbiter was eraployed, Rabbits had decreased during the last two months. The Government bush adjoining was well Btocked with rabbits. The outside number obtained II by the hands was 21, There have been- /' too rabbiters and witness and defendant's- : son killing rabbits since 19th January. I Two rabbiters would keep the rabbits in check. By Mr Bunny: purposely for hunting rabbits. decreased on defendant's run since January last. The last rabbiter started work on the 28th January. Sixty-Bix dogs are kept on the run. By Mr Beard: The two rabbiters now average about ten rabbits a day. Peroy Smith, son of defendant, depend that after receiving notice.he went talks • ran, and assisted to kill aabbits for/moi&V- - than a week. The rabbits had decreased ■ I since last winter. ;-, / j By Mr Bunny: Saw ;Mr Sutton on the • 1 run during the week witness was there. The rabbiters and.witness averaged about ' 14 or IB per day. By Mr Bunny: The rabbits killed were ■ - mostly on Government land. - Walter Perry deposed he wenl; over(the defendant's run about a fortnight ago,. : but'saw no rabbits. '.His Worship dismissed the informal:-"■ tion. Defendant had not put on as many-n. men as'witness Wallace Smith thought.--' necessary, but ho had taken steps to keep'- ' the rabbits in oheok and'showed a great : desire to get rid of them. Defendant had ; " not failed or refused to take efficient steps, : and he would therefore dismiss the case with costs, including manager's expenses ofi2los.