R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3282, 14 August 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON-TUESDAY (before Col, Roberts R.M.) C. G, Beckett v J. Monaghan, claim £3, adjourned till next sitting, THE RABBIT ACT. J. Druminond vJ. Grant, Mr Bunny for the plaintiff, Inspector Drummond gave evidence as to notice served on the defendant, and also the inefficient steps which had been taken to destroy tho rabbits on the said run, which is situated at Gladstone. Had not seen where any steps had been taken to destroy the rabbits. What few traces he saw were very old.

James Harvey corroborated the avidence of the plaintiff. To the Court; I visited the property on the sth July and defendant stated that he was going to lay poison at oncoj and I suggested to him that as Mrs Dorset, on the adjoining property, was going to commence m about a fortnight it would be as well for both to begin at the same time, but the defendant has not done anything at all since the notice was served on him.

The defendant, being sworn, said lie was not in charge of the seotion of land mentioned in the information and that lie had 110 instructions to deal with the property. The property belonged to Alexander Grant, but he had merely taken upon himself to destroy the rabbits, Had tried his best to keep the rabbits down as far as he could, First laid poison in May after receiving the first notice and in two or three weeks after intended to have laid some more poison only for what Mr Harvey told him about the neighbours commencing. Did not commence when his neighbors did but had since done it. Although taking upon himself to do the poisoning had no authority for doing it, The property belonged to Alex. Grant, of flawkes Bay, To Mr Bunny: I don't live on the property, neither have I any legal possession of it. I pay the rates in the name of my uncle Alex. Grant, but I have nover asked liini for any repayments, and have not received any. Pined £5 with costs 7s,

J. Drummond v. N. Grace. Mi Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard foi 'defendant,

The evidence of the Inspector was much the same as in the former case. The Counsel for the defence proposed to the Court that he would on the next Court day produce evidence for mitigation of the penalty. Fined ,£5 and costs 7s. Thos. Price v. Joe Hall, Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Jacltson for defendant.

The Counsel for the defendant applied to' have tile case struck out as the biisjnoss (jit) nqt transpire in this district and was consequently out of the jurisdiction of this Court, The case was ono of a dishonored P.N. for £IOO.

Tlios, Price deposed that he was seeking to recover tbe gum ef XIOO in two promisory notes, tbe same being for timber supplied. The P.N's bad been duly presented at the Bank and dishonored, j udst* j inent deferred. J, and J. Callister v, J. Waghorn. When the case was called on the plaintiff stated that an amicable arrangement bad been come to. The case was a claim for £5 15s 9d for goods supplied. Mr Acheson appeared for plaintiff, costs 10s,