RABBIT CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1315, 5 April 1883, Page 2

RABBIT CASE.

We .take tho following; full report'of a recent, rabbil : case heard at Greytbwni' before Mr Warclell and Messrs Revans and Wood from the Standard, as tho "■': point raised for the defendant isone of some general interest, and we understand '-i the decision of the.Court, ut ill .be'lshaj-J lenged by formal appeal:- tJ? liabbit Inspector v Charles Tully."" Mr Bunny for plaintiff; Mr Gray for defendant. This was a case under Iho Rabbit ': Nuisance Act, 1882, charging the''defen-' '' : dant with not carrying out the destruction of rabbits.upon his property, W. A. P. Sutton, rabbit inspeofcor,Bworn, was Inspeotor of Sheep, appointed under the Sheep Act, and also under tho Rabbit Act, 1882. A notice had been served upon ; the defendant. Be knew the defendant," but did not know by what name the place was known. It was culled Tully'a run,.' and he believed Charles Tully was in :' charge; he had found tho defendant there when he visited the estate. It was; in December when he visited the property and went through it. He found the rabbits all ovrr tho run, and in some ; places they were very thick.

Cross examined by Mr Gray—Have passed through the run once or twice; never had dealings, tilth Charles Tully ■;. respecting sheep; was not aware that four sous of Mr Tully, sen., resided on the estate. The returns ol sheep are sent ; to Wellington and not to mo. Believed that Charles was manager or agent; he always spoke as if he was in charge and had the working .of the place. Do not remember seeing John Tully there, and am not aware that he is manager. Oil 16th Decomber went through the run—l through a creek to Longbusb. He told Charles Tully of the state of the ground and that the rabbits must be destroyed. He suggested that he should fence certain portions m and starve them out. He sold him » pair offerrels and sent him a wbbiter. who went and was engaged, When he went through the property he saw neither rabbitter, dogs, or Maoris, Had been on the river fl a i s on Martin's land; knew Tully'a neighbors, the M'Laren's, and had not seen many rabbits on their land, The rabbits were numerous on some of the adjoining lands. This information wa3 laid as pertaining to tho whole run, By Mr Bnnny—When speaking to Mr Tully it was in a friendly way as to tho steps he should take, and not a»;\ Rabbit Inspoctor. Charles Tully spoke as fhough he was tho man in authority, Henry Vallance, sworn.—Am an agent employed by Mr Sutton to visit various lands; have visited Mr Tully's land, and on the 23vd October, I served a notice on Mr Charles Tully. Know the Table Lands run, and the stale of it, Received authority from tho Sheop Inspector lo sorve Charles Tully with a notice, Believed him to be manager of the property. Inspector of rabbits re-called—Had instructed an agent lo visit the property, and he had reported the stale of the land and therahbits upon it, Ho issued the | notice and caused it to bo served by Mr Vallance, Jaa. Harvey sworn.-Acting under instructions of the Babbit Inspector I visited the Table Lands Estate, During my visits I found tho rabbits very numerous upon some parts of the run, and | reported the matter to the Inspector. Orosß-examined. —The visits were the usual ones—had been over every spur and had not seen any rabbiler, but knew a rabbiter was on the estate. By Mr Bunny-Thought defendant was manager by the way he spoke to me. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Gray contended that there was no evidence to show that a notice signed by' the Inspector had been served by Vallance. He also contended that Mr Charles Tully was not the owner or agent, Charles Tully was then called and sworn, and in reply to questions from the Bench, stated that his brother, John, was the manager and was in charge of the sheep; he did not know of any written authority. Am employed by my father at so inuoh a year and so is my brotKiL Have engaged servants for my my brother John has charge of the stjffß and I see to the destruction of the Am not my o;/n master in tho stops I may, teke in the destruction of rabbits, Have no power! to incur liability without my father's consent. He resides in Greytown, and manages the affairs of the run; all stock is bought and sold by him. The bench ruled that defendant's poai* tion was that of a servant of his father and therefore not legally liable. The owner was the person to serve the notice upon, , The case was dismissed, • ccsts. not being allowed.