RABBIT DOGS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1039, 3 April 1882, Page 2

RABBIT DOGS.

The adjoui'riedmeetingreihe.registration, of rabbit dogs'was.'held'a! the Empire Hotel oh Saturday afternoon, about fifteen-farmers being present, Mr J, V, Smith in the chair, The chairman had been requested at the fbrmerJrrieetirig to obtain a legal'opinion' on the question from Mr Trave'ra, which' he: read as' follows.'— . 1 ■ With reference toVtlie question put ;to me in ybnr letter of the 18th inst,, the conclusion whioh I have arrived at is this: 1. That dogs solely-; employed .for destroying, and bo certificated by the Inspector, are absolutely exempt from fees on the! Dog Eegi'stration'Amendment"Abt, of IBBt, /"■;.-.-;'....,.::...: .,... ... 2..That County, Council s reduce the registratjon.fee below is: in',the case of dogs solely emplo'ye'dfor' the'"double purposes" of .the management of stobk and the deatruotionof rabbits.

You will 'observe'that the.'Dog Regis-tration'Actof-1881:is:tpberead as.formingpart of'the';. Aibt of IBB6^;whioli-:-ex-pressly declares; that its provisions are not to affect aijy .prbvisipnS of any Rabbit Nuisance sct, an'd' it .co,uld ; ev|dently not have been' the intention of the Legislature impliadly to repeal, alter-or affect tho'provisibns of paction 22 of the' Babbit Nuisance Aot, 1881, by-the-.proviso to sebtion 2 of the Dog Registration Act of the same'session. . . The fact that in proviso .the- conjunctive is used'in relation to the.dpgß to be exempted, seems to indicate that the Legislature, whilst leaving.untouolied the: speoial exemption contained in motion 22 of the Rabbit -Nuisance: Act,, was desirous of giving, to the local-authority a power to favor dogs solely used for the double purpose mentioned in the proviso.' 1 ' /';" ; ".' The chairman said this shewed, oonolu-. oively that rabbit dogs were exempt. It .was!; what he had all through, : and all • that tHey had been .fighting for. _ All they had to do! was to:oßtain ac'ertificate from the rabbit inspector's agent, and then.one from the inspeojor himself,' The Legislature had evidently made a blunder in .using the wqrd.J'_arid" instead off- or" in regard to rabbit'dogs, and dogs used for the manAgeraenT,'of live-stook.'.' He. thought County'-.Odaaoil' hadgone: nr|her hastily ijt'o" the inatter, and : should j

lirst have obtained legal advice on the question, They lad pie to great ex." pense in providing collars, and if the settlers demanded them they would cer tainly have<to'pay for-them. .All dogs had to be registered, but it was absurd to make settlers teke collars for rabbit!dogs, and he thought they ought to be dispensed with. County East found they wereputting their fool m it, and so stopped short. He suggested,,that, the rabbit,.lnspector's agents should be made dog registrars, who should keep books and certify, to the :» u ,?° e f.?{ dogs kept for. rabbit purposes, or otherwise, in their respective districts, Ihis would save a lot of trouble and inconvenience to settlers, and would entail little extra work for the agents. Mr R, R, Welch thought the collars for rabbit dogs should certainly be dis-pensed-with. He produced a : certificate which he had obtained from the Inspector. Mr McKoy expressed his intention of demanding the.collars. He said the West County had no right to enter" into a contract for collars when they were not required. ' The chairman would advise settlers not to demand the collars as if they did they would certainly, have to pay for them. The Council had made a mistake, but he thought they should not take advantage of it, The ohairman and Mr R. B. Weloh were then appointed a committee of ways and means, and the meeting dispersed after a vote of thanks to the chair, the only business being to receive Mr Traver'B opinion which was considered satisfactory,