R.M.COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2233, 2 March 1886, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-MONDaY.

Beforo H. A. Stratford,. Esq., R.M John Druramond, Rabbit Nuisance Inspector v T. 0. Andrews.—Breach of Sectjon 9, Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1882. In giving judgement in the abovo case yesterday the Magistrate summed up as follows : It will be remembered that the case for the prosecution having been dosed, the defendant claimed a right to be heard under section 34 of the Act—for mitigation of the penalty—but the Magistrate intimated that as the Inspector had laid his information so soon after the offeneo had been committed,, the penalty would bo a minimum one; whereupon the defendant reiterated his claim to bB heard with a view-to induce the Inspector to modify his opinion; and the defendant was then informed by the Court that as only a minimum penalty would be imposed, evidence under section 34 would be useless, and ; farcical, as it could not affect the judgment in a case of a minimum penalty, for the advene opinion of the Inspector carried a conviction, and dofendant upon that conviction would be fined the lowest possible penalty, viz., £l. To this ruling defendant demurred, maintainiug his right to be heard under section 34 of the Act, even although it could not effect the judgment already proclaimed, and he asked that the Magistrate Bhould not inforce the fine until he decided the point as to whether a defendant is entitled to be heard or not under section 34. In accordance with this request ot the defendant, judgment was reserved, and the Court now finds (Ist) Tliat evidently with a view to extirpate a terrible pest which is causing ruinous havoc to an important industry, the Legislature has passed a law giving an unprecidented,and,extraordinary power to officers under the Act, whose adverse opinion expressed in open Court before a competent tribunal against a duly summoned defendant charged with certain offences under the 9th and 10th sections of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1882, carried conviction, upon which a penalty could bo inflicted. (2nd) That the defendant's contention that evidence for the defence (provided for under section 34) might cause the informant to modify his opinion is impraotible, because the prosecutor having closed his case before the defendant and his witnesses are heard, the former is precluded from making any reply to the defence; his mouth iscloßod, and it would be wrong to permit him to stultify himself. (3rd.) But in all cases where the Bench has not expressed'it* intention of inflictin? the lowest penalty, defendant's evidence might be useful to guide the decision of tho Magistrate as to the oxtenfcof the penalty neoossary to meet tho merits of the case (4th.) That under any circumstances—if only for the technical reason that it is defendant's privilege—oveii if nothing apparently is to be gained by it, if defendant presses he should be heard, because the law allows it, and tho Magistrate should be guided by the maxim " Judicis est jus dicero non dare," and as the defendant's contention is valid on the' technical ground of privilege (Andi alterum partem) it is desirable in the ends of justice that ho should enjoy the benefit of his claim, and as he resides it a distance of about 200 miles from this Court House it would be a hardship instoad of a privilege that he should be obliged'to appear to enable him to exercise it.. The case, therefore, uudor tho circumstances, will be treated as incomplete, and tho information dismissed. Inspector Drummond v Hon. John Johnston, Mr Beard for informant; Mr Barton for defendant.

Defendant was charged under the 9fch section of the Rabbit Act with having failed to destroy tho rabbits on his run at Mataikuna.

Mr Barton pleaded not guilty, and that his client had, immediately on receiving notice, taken such Bteps as he deemed necessary to destroy tho rabbits. He asked His Worship whether ho would be allowed to examine the witness. Inspector Drummond, upon the question of facts. He was aware that the opinion of the Inspector carried conviction, but Sir Drummond came theie to convict his client upon a question of fact as well aB of opinion.

His Worship asked of what uso it would be. If the informant gave evidence, and at tho end said, "In my opinion, steps have not been taken to destroy the rabbits," it must, in accordance with the Act, carry conviction. Mr Barton said the offence was not for having rabbits. Ho did not for a moment dispute that, nor did he dispute tho experience of the Inspector, but whether they had commenced to take steps was a question of fact, and upon which he claimed he had the right to examine witness.

•The case of Sutton v Thompson, boforo the Chief Justice was referred, to whore it was shown, that the chief jußtico held the Inspector was not bound to express an opinion upon what were necessary stops. Mr Stratford agreed with this and Baid the Inspector must not be allowed to stultify himself. Mv Barton asked the Magistrate whether &\ that stage he would state whether he must inflict a penalty. The Court replied in the affirmative, and Mr Barton submitted that tho informant was not aeeking'a conviction upon his opinion, but upon the question of tho fact whether his client had commenced the necessary steps to clear the run of rabbits. His Worship said he would allow counsel to examine informant upon the question of fact, but it would not alter the result. A minimum fino was all that was asked,

After some considerable argument by counsel, judgment was given against the defendant and a penalty inflicted of £1 and Court costs 7s,

Mr Bunny asked for solicitor's fee in the case, but His Worship said he should decidedly not allow counsel's fee in any rabbit case, so long as the Act was bo arbitrary and gave such power to Inspectors. What did Government want with legal assistance with such an act as that for Inspectors to act upder ? Mr Barton gave notice of appeal in this case upon a point of law, A similar line was inflicted for breaches of the Act in the cases of the Hon. Walter W. Johnston, (Castlepoint) ; Hiwh Bellia, (VV«)odhurst) j W m . B. Williams, (Flag Creeek); J. C. (Kahumingi); and John jjj jion (Blairlogie).