R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1298, 8 February 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

. : OARTEBTON—WEDNESDAr." ;(Before H. 8. R. -Faivbrother v G. Sayer—Debt £T IPs, • Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant. Judgmerty for amount aud costs. : : J . ;B, Harcourtr V; Ellen ; Smith— Debt£7'lS. : Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, Mr Gray for defendant. Judgment for defendant and costs 21s. Same vA. Hughan—Debt £6 5s iOd; | Mr Sandilands for plaintilf, Mr Gray; for .defendant. Judgment for '£s- 5s lOd and costs £1,175. F " : : Same v Pistolisi Emindo—Debt £2, Mi Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs £1 125., , , ... Same v Jorgen Mikkleson— Debt <£s lis Id, Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for £3 14s airi'd costs;i2. Same v F. Parsloe—Debt. £3 19s sd. Mr Sandilands for •' plaintiff. Judgment foi? amount and costs £ll2s. Same v Charles Gower—Debt £lB 14s sd. - Mr Sandilands l for plaintiff. Judgment for .£l6 and costs £2 2s. George Gaskin v P. Meenken,— Debt l £ls 13s. Mr Sandilands for plaintifi, Mr Gray for defendant. Judgment for amount and costs £2l7s. G.! Deller v -A, Armstrong.—Debt £4 2s. Mr Gray for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs £1 9s. There were seven cases against defaulting ratepayers by the TaratahiOarterton Highway Board, which were ail settled out of court or the amounts paid in, . W. A. P. Sutton, Rabbit Inspector, prosecuted five landowners for not destroying the rabbits on their properties. Pines of 20s each were inflicted in three cases, and of 40s in the other two.

, MASTERTON—THURSDAY, f i fßefore H, 8. Wakmiil, R.M.]' W.; A. P.. Suttton v C. F. Wnrlh.— Breach of Rabbit Act by failing to destroy rabbits, Mr Bsard for informant, and Mr Bunny for defendant. . • The defendant said he had done the best he cnuld to destroy the rabbits after receipt of notice. v L John Drummond,; Inspector, sworii, deposed that he served a notice on the 'defendant to destroy rabbits on the 31st of October, through Mr Gayfer. v Defendant had not subsequently taken the steps necessary, in his opinion; for the destruction of the rabbits. Mr Gayfer, callod, proved the service of >he notice. • , -■■ ■ Defendant stated that after the receipt of .the notice be and hie two sons were hunting the rabbits wilh dogs, and were continually assisted by neighbors. They g»t from thirty to eighty daily, ana, from his observation, the number of them was materially decreased. The Court said the onus of proof of satisfying the inspector rested with the defendant,

Ml' Gayfer said that in October' the rabbits were plentiful and in Jannary he still fo % und thein very plentiful. In his opinion the number had increased.

Defendant siid they could not poison after reciipt of notice on account of the season of the year. The' rabbits were a myth to what they formerly were. The area of the property was 3000 acres, but the rabbit post was confined to a portion of the property. .. ■■ '• h The Court said it appeared to hini that no systematic effort had been mads, and he . would inflict a comparatively small fine, but the defendant would in a month's time be liable to another penalty if the rabbits were not destroyed. Every month a reourring penalty of not leas than'five and not more than twenty pounds would beenforoed if the Inspector were • not .satisfied. Defendant was fined forty shillings and costs, Sutton v T. L. Thompson.—Breach : of Rabbit, Act. , The Court Baid that the case was before it on a former ocoasion, when it held'. that the inspector should: Hare informed the defendant what steps shfiUM be taken to destroy rabbits, This deolßion had been reversed in the Supreme Court —therefore it was not necessary for "a conviction that the inspector should intimate to a landowner what steps should be taken. The Chief Justice was' reported to have.eaid that the test was success.. Ho did; not read the statute that way himself, but he was bound to acoept the ruling of the Supreme Court. The case was remitted to him for further trial, and it now remained with the defendant to shew, what steps were taken to destroy! the rabbits with a view to determine the amount of penalty to be inflicted. Mr Bunny thought the Chief Justice woi mistaken in his ruling,. ; Mr Wardell said he did not sit to review the decision of the Supreme Court T, L. Thompson, the defendant, stated that:'after receiving the notice he endeavored by advertising and ;'privale.;inqniries to obtain a rabbitter, but,men. .were scarce, it being shearing iimej and .person. After the service of the summons be put one of his farm hands on. - Mr ;Beard-pointed ,out that;tbe ; steps, after the service of the notice, hot of the summons, constituted' the only real'evidence.' ijill'i.!!■!;j The Court ruled that the statement of the defendant mußt- be limited to a week after the service of the notice. ; To Mr Beard: T Preyioas to the service of the notice defendant kepta rabbitter, but immediately after" the service of thfe notice--ho had none. He engaged one man but he did not turn up. Be had farm laborers on his ground, who were occupied with other work; at that time he bad four or five rabbit dogi on hU ground, now he

had twenty..-. Farm laborers'tyeroitot'flli persons to send after rabbits. To the Court; Ab far as his own opinion went he did all he could to comply with the notice, knowing the stringency of the new Aot. The Court—The difficulty ut a man may .put in an advertisement ab a standing exouse. At times - a 'difficulty hr Retting* ' men would no doubt occnr, and a good man was worth two bad ones. •" • • Mr Beard said 'bF waY-iiistraeted press for a full penalty in (his case as the defendant had previously been before the - jOouM. ,' f J f \ j, Mr Bunny Btrongly objeoted to a previous case being, referred to. which had.... j been withdrawn. .' " Mr Beard pointed out that the open ground of the defendant jras favorable to rabbit opßratiensH (vr? - The Coart 'eaid it would on6 Mr.Beurd: One pound is the minimum .; lenaltyi... "r; fA '- 'J- " • The Court-' Then it will be one pound.' |t ; fixed,,this minimum*,penalty on aooount of the recurrent penalties which followed .monthly ns long as rabbits were on the, eround. Sii .long ftff )j f were rabbits on the land there would be a monthly .penalty of not less than 1 five and not more than twenty pounds.. . ; Mr Bunny—lf this: is . enforced;, the; nbbiti will soon tiln puisetsion of tb» land,;/ ;•; t The Coiirt—R may have the effect of indueing active and united exertions on the part' ofilandnwners;.if: : a,o it' would A? prove'very benefibisl.' ' ' '' Mr Sutton asked the Court if that an inspector, should wait a month be* ' fore taking proceedings;/ ' 'f. j. The Court .-replied, that according': to - its reading of ttie Act' proceeding! might ' oe taken twenty-four hours after the - service of notice. Mr Bunny , asked the'.Court noMo """ grant the usual costs against the defendant,'but the' Court declined to acdede 'to this. . . ~ .'; . t Sutton.?H, Falloori. pßreacll of Rib'bit') 0 Defendant slated tlmt immediately after the service of the notice on the 7th of December, he employed;a .rabbiter.: ; Hia . property consisted of 280 acres,' the" rabbiter did nothing else beyond; milking a few cows. He'could riot say. the rabbits'j<were iDuohreduced aa the adjacent.Maori v . : ground infested his properly. ~ Tlie Court pointed out that ' v might ferice.his h sigh borarabbit 8 off ' * « Defendant said the boundary a 1;":';! river; one, and the rabbits oroßaed the ; t ' stream.' The informant. Btated.that, the. rabbiter only, hunted iii spare .'times. ,' . '■] The Court thought a .rabbitterVßhonld; L not be engaged jn milking.;; Fined fortTo ' " 1 shillinga-and costs!; He warned,'. dant against the recurrent penalties.. r !No doubt the Inspector, would follow up the '.^ s present convictions. • : , , ~i,,, : übusn;, ; ' : Waiter Qeorge Pink vta brought up on , two charges of dealing from a dwelling ..Ihouse near the railway station, the ; pro- . pferty of. Rielurd Rogers and: Henry Carnell. •.' • The accused pleaded guilty to the ; : 'charges. .■■■•.■ ; The Court: What is your a«e , ....... . The father of the accused: Fourteen' 1 years aridfour months. ' r-.iic . The Court: Unless there is some evidence of this I shall treat him as under fourteen. ■ " Mr Pink eaid he oould speak positively as to his age.The Court said that if the boy were under fourteen he had power to order a whipping; otherwise he sjfould have to . commit him to goal The offence wae an indictable one and the acoused mightt ifyj p* he thought proper'withdraw' his' plea, and ' •• bo tried by a jury. R. Rogers deposed that the whare was broken into during his absence in Decern-. ber last. He was absent four days, and on his return found the glass of the win-: -■ j dow broken' and a number .of small; articles missing, I ,including several 1 books 1 some socks; and three '.shillingsin money,' 1 '; Constable Leahy.stated thathe'arreßted , i ,/ ,;;. the.lad, ard found the artiblps in his box.. Hedenied taking, the 'three, shilling! or a pair of socks, but admitted. taking the books and studs, . ; ; R. Rogers on theiecond ohirgtdepostd. that in January he left the whare nailing ,;: up the window with 'boards, On hit return he found a Leisure Hour and other > articles amounting invito# to two poobdi ; ' Sve Bhillings had been abstracted.- ~ ? I '' Constable Leahy (iepbsed to finding ! articles in the seoon I charge in the box of the accused. The Court aske.l the accused if he had-.-anything to say m extenuation of his\/ fault. "" ' " ' Tho accused—No sir; '.; The Court said the boy itemed hardly' to realize his position, and it: would defer passing sentence till (lie following morning to euable him to think over the position in which ho was placed. His father, put the,(heft..down .to, , craving for reading novels. CIVIL CASH. A. R, Bunny v Hans Hansen.—Debt 14165'4d. Judgment for amount and costs, Bi. Same ,v' John Hawke.—Debt 10a .6d, Judgment for amoimt : and Same v Ockenden.—Debt £9 6s 9d, Judgmenb for amount and cobls, 9s, Same v T. Hutchison.—Debt II fr. Judgment for amount and costs, Bs, . Same vW. Day.—Debt •£1 5s 2d. Judgment for amount and 'coats.; . Same v William Francis.—Debt M 9» 4d.. Judgment folr defendant, costs 6s. Same v D. H, Foßter. —Debt £3 8s 2d. Judgment for amount and costs, Bs,. There were nineteen eases against defaulting ratepayers by the Mitlerton Highway Board.' In most of them the' amounts were paid into' Court and judgment given for the rest. D. F. McCarthy v John' Delwood— Debt £4lßs 6d, Judgment for amount and costs 7s. Same v C. A. Pinkerton- Debt £l2los 7d. Defendant ordered to pay by monthly - ; itißtalmenti.of £1 each, costs 19s. ,i j. ■; /j Same t J,. Stanford—Debt £1 Is 3d. % Judgment for amount arid'eosto 4s, i' v i