IMPORTANT TO LANDOWNERS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1282, 19 January 1883, Page 3

IMPORTANT TO LANDOWNERS.

The following is is the result of the appeal to the Supreme Court in the case of Sutton v, Thompson The respondent; a landowner in the Wairarnpa County,. received notice ' from the appelant, an Inspector under . the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1882,, requiring him to destroy'the rabbits on his land, An information was afterwards laid,.charging that tlio respondent did not, immediately on the service of such notice, commence to do all sucli acts as. in the opinion of the appellant were necessary to destroy the rabbits on the said land in the shortest time possible, The information was dismissed, and the Inspector appealed. The case on appeal stated the following facts:—The appellant caused.'.one James Harvey to serve a notice under section 8 of the Eabbit Nuisance-Act/ 1882. Harvey served the notice and Subsequently visited the land,, .and/ found the rabbits as numerous as at the time of serving the notice. Neither the inspector nor Harvey intimated to defendant what acts were necessary, in the opinion of the complainant, -as -Inspector, necessary to do in' order ■to destroy the rabbits in the shortest time possible. The information was dismissed on the ground of the defendant 1 not being informed what acts were, in the opinion of the complainant, necessary. On this the appellant appealed. Mr Bell for the appellant: The magistrate has raised one point only. Mr Travers proposes to raise another point but only the. point raised by the magistrate can beargued. (Prendergast C.J.: It seem to me I can only consider the point raised by the magistrate).' The Act does not provide that the landowner shall do what he is told to do. It is a matter of opinion of the Inspector, which he need not express to the landowner. The Sheep Act, 1878, has 1 a similar provision. Mr Travers: The Sheep Act is not analogous In cases under that Act there is a reasonable time, but under this statute the' -iaml-. owner is to commence at once to do, such acts as may, in the.opinion.of-the Inspector, be necessary, &o r . The opinion of the Inspector, must be expressed, or the landowner callnot know what to do, He is not to do such acts as may be reasonably, calculated to destroy the rabbits, but such acts as the Inspector may think. C [Prendergast, C.J., suggested that the true meaning of section 9 was to be obtained by transposing' the words should read "do not, in the opinion of the Inspector, commence to do all such acts, deeds, matters, and things as may be'necessary, <fec,"] This being a pohal statute a strict construction must be put upon its provisions' I think the ■Magistrate has erred,- the noticeis to destroy the rabbits. What is -required is to destroy rabbits. The penalty is. not. for not immediately destroying. , the" ra Ww,r time apparently a montnf Ido not think the Inspector baa. to point out the mode in which the ■ rabbits are to be destroyed. The landowner chooses his mode,. Ho subjects * himself to a penalty if the mode he chooses is not to the satisfaction of thelnspector. It is not more extraordinary that he should be the person to say whether the modo is proper,' than that he should be the person to to say whether the rabbits still exist. The offence is not taking the necassary steps, The Legislature probably anj .ticipated that the landowner wotild i choose his own modo, and /that 1 the Inspector would say ■ {whether it was efficient, or not, The /form of the notioe also seems to show that the Inspector is not to indicate :• the mode adopted,. Case remitted tp the magistrate, with opinion of-the ; Court that the information ought not ,- |p have been 4|§mis3et) on the grounds stated }n the gase, Np' costs,—N,Z, fips, .