R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2411, 28 September 1886, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

.. ._, —.. MASIERToN.-MONDAY.

[Before H. S. \VUruell, R.M.]'" Breach of the Kjlbbii Act. Inspector Orbell v. J. o.'Andrew. Tins case, which was before •.the. Court when we went to press yesterday; was an action brought'by the Rabbit lns'p\sctor, under the 10th Section of the Rai^it Act.

Inspector Orbell gave evidence that iu Juno, July, August, and Septomber he or Agent Smith had visited defendant's run. lntheoarly months he found six men employed poisoning w'th a poison-plough, but ho did not cousidor tho steps being taken wero Bufficjout, aud ho told defendant so. He found in August that defendant had discharged the men poisoning, and had only two men employed constantly in keeping down, the pest with a gun and a spade, assisted by a cow boy aud his sun itt irrcPiilar intervals. Ho met defendant on tho road after that and told him that the stops taken were quite inadequate to destroy rabbits on a run of 18000 Acres. There were two men at work felcing. Defendant argued witli witness for half-an-hour on the definition of what was a rabbitor, at the end of which he (witness) felt very small. Ho informed defendant that ho would proceed against him for a broach of the Act and would visit the ruii again in a fortnight. That time wasnot yet up. He. had told him that with a view to got him to go to work. Defendant's neighbours had been poisoning during tho winter and satisfactory steps had been taken by them. Witness was severely • cross-examined' by defendant as to the number of won employed on the run. His Worship pointed out that the Act ■of 1886 ho thought altered the mode of procedure. The defendant could bring evidence in ■mitigatiou.of the fine, lie would be in a stronger position by being ablo to bring forward pnaitivo evidence as to the means adopted by him than he could obtain from tho evidouoo of the Inspector, which could only bo of a negative character.

■ ,T. Wallace Smith, agent to tho department, gave corroborative evidence, and was put through a severe cross-csamitia-ation by tho defeudant, Defendant addressed the Court at some longtl). He would be able to bring evidence to prove tho steps he had taken in mitigation of tho penalty if fined. His Worship intimated that defeudant had sot up his own theories against that of the Inspector, and he would be convicted of a breach of soction 10 of tho Act. The minimum penalty was £5, and the maximum £IOO, Ho would be fined in the sum of £2O, and His Worship Baid he would hear any evidence he could briiiff fonvard in mitigation of thfi.nenalty on November Ist.