R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3270, 31 July 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON-TUESDAY,

(Before Colonel Boberls, E.M.) THE HABMT ACT. J. Drummond v T, G. MeCarty, Mr Beard for dofendant—failing to destroy the -rabbits on bis run, James Harvey proved that lie visited tbo run on tho Olh July, and that no steps liatl then been taken.to desfroy the 'rabbits, . The place was unoccupied;■'. chiefly standing bush with patches from 10 to 20 acres cleared.

His Worship intimated that he was of opinion that tho. Chief Inspector should,;visit the property. An objection, beuig" raised to that point his Worship, preserved his decision, ::- : ■ ■■■■

Same v. J. Burrow; same offence, Mr Beard for defendantj'.wlio pleaded not guilty. •■'^■■^■y:

Plaintiff company with Harvey he vfsited-.thp .property of the defendant's'nOn-the 6th July, and that sufficient V steps -had not been taken to destroy the rabbits,' James Harvey corroborated,the evidence of the plaintiff, and. also that he visited the property in June and nothing- had been done to destroy the rabbits, The defence .was that thedefenpant is not the owner or real occupier of the property. J. Burrow being sworn, doposed that he resided on White's Line, and that he sold the property referred to fifteen mouths ago to a party South and that Messrs Stock and Herd are in possession as managers for the owners.

The Court: Do you receive any ■rent from the property?' No, I receive no benefits whatever from the property, Deferred, CIVIL OASES. A. Grigg v. J. H. McGrath, claim ilfisßd.. Mr Middleton for plaintiff.. Judgment for amount with cost 6s. Henry Burgess v. Chas. Blake. Mr Acheson for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. A claim for £4 for a

ou w sold to defendant in December' ■ t year. Mrs Burgess and Mr Burgess gave evidence for the plaintiff, and the defendant deposed that the price agreed upon for tho cow was £2. Wm. Ridgway being sworn, stated that about the 18th December last he was on the ■ road near Burgess', and heard the conversation I between the plaintiff and defendant, and that the price promised for the cow was £2, and that was 25s more than the animal was worth.

Judgment for tho amount of £2 which was paid into Court previously, each party to pay their own costs. .The judgment in this oase being objected to by the counsel, for the defendant and very ably replied to by the plaintiffs counsel his Worship took time to consider the objection.

At this stage the Court adjourned for an hour, and on resuming, in tho two cases of the rabbit nuisance, the informations were dismissed, as His Worship's opinion being that the Chief Inspector failed to prove m the first caw that sufficient steps had not been taken to destroy the rabbits, and in the case of Burrow the plaintiff failed to prove that Burrow, was tho owner of -the property; aud in the last case Burgess v. Blake, the decision was reversed, and judgment was that the plaintiff pay all costs of proceedings, that being the law as laid down by Judge Johnston in the Justices of the Peace Act.