R.M. COURT.
FEATHERSTON—MONDAY. (Before H. S. Wardell, E.M.) W. A. P. Sutton v Charles Harris, Hantotal's—Breach of ninth section of Babbit Act. Defendant pleaded guilty and was fined j6lO. Same v C. J. Toxward—Breach of Babbit Act. Mr Bunny, who appeared for defendant' pleaded utility. The informant did not press for other than a nominal penalty, and a fine of twenty shillings was inflicted. Same v George Wall—Breach of Rabbit Act. Defendant admitted the charge but pleaded that he had endeavored to obey the order, but was prevented by harvest work from doing much. Fined £3 and costs.
Same v Wallace Smith and George Harriß—Breachesfof Rtibbit Aot, Mr Gray appeared for the defendants and denied service of notices. . Informant stated that the agent who served the notices was Absent; on sick leave and could not appear, but submitted his affidavit of the notices having been duly sewed, The Court refused to accept the affidavit, and the cases were dismissed with costs.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18830206.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1296, 6 February 1883, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
161R.M. COURT. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1296, 6 February 1883, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in