R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3294, 28 August 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTEHTON-TUESDAY. (Before Col. Roberts H.M.) John Drammond v Win. Booth.— Breach of Babbit Nuisance Act. Mr Bunny for plaintiff; 0. 11. Gayfer, rabbit agent, proved the service of notice on 22nd May last, and had since visited the property of the defendant and found the rabbits very numerous. He saw poison laid on some portions of the property, but on some paddocks there was no poison atari, To the defendant: Ido not remember when the first notice was served on you. I believe you commenced to destroy the rabbits as soon as you came into possession of the property. The defendant admitted that there were rabbits on the property, but during the short time he had had the property the most strenuous steps had been taken to destroy them, Inspector. Drummond deposed that he visited the property on 15th inst., and found the rabbits numerous along the cliff, and that sufficient steps had not been taken to destroy them since the notice was served on 22nd May, Fined £5 and costs 7s, Evidence m mitigation of the fine;

Martin Elgar, manager of the run for Messrs Booth, deposed that on the 22nd May, when notioe was served, ho had not commenced ploughing at that time, and there were a few rabbits. Commenced ploughing on the 11th Juno, and had done all that could possibly bo done to destroy tho rabbits by hunting with dogs and poison laying, Ferrets had been turned out on the run, and also four miles of sheep proof fencing erected since tho serving of the notice to facilitate tho destroying of the rabbits,

To Mr Bunny: I started poisoning first at the cliff where Hie rabbits harbour most, To the Court; There have bcon about 10 or 18 bushels of poisoned grain laid on the run to the present time. Could not say exactly what the quantity por acre should be laid, 1 have seen a great many dead rabbits through the poisoning, The defendant further stated, that everything which money and labor could do to destroy the rabbits had been done since ho had been in possession of the run, Fine reduced to .£2, including costs. J, Drummond v. Kohaitahana, same offenco, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. The Counsel for defendant said that his client was only part owner with othor natives of the property. James Harvey, rabbit agent, deposed to the sorviugof notice, and also to the state of the run as to tho rabbits since such notice had been served, and at his last visit the work of poisoning appeared to have beon neglected as he saw a great number of young rabbits. Fined £5, and Court costs 7s, solicitors fee 21s.

Mr Beard asked to bo allowed to apply for a mitigation of tho lino at the next sitting of the Court at Carterton, J. Drummoud v. Nat Grace. This was an application for the mitigation of the penalty inflicted at the last sitting of the Court in Carterton, Mr Bunny, counsol for plaintiff, asked that all witnesses bo ordered out of Court, Application granted, Mr Beard for the defendant, N. Grace dep.ose.d that he was served with a notice 011 tho 22nd May lest by the Inspector. The extent of the run was about4ooo acres of native leasehold, and a very rough place about- 8000 acres of it is clear land. He received tho notice on the 22nd May and commenced poisoning on tho 29th May, and continued up till the 20th July and effectually poisoned every portion of the cleared laud, and followed, up tho poisoning with dogs and guns, and turning out ferrets, Some part of the run had been poisoned four or five times, and in. such quantities that tho result had been that lie had lost over 100 sheep through tho .poisoning. About 15CO bushels of poisoned wheat had been laid, and had cost him forty or fifty pounds for wages besides the cost of the poisoned grain* To Mr Bunny: My property adjoins the properties of Messrafieathaui anil Buqlia'nan, ami is partly, fenced with rabbit proof fencing, which was done by us conjointly, _ Thos. Grace, who is a part owner of_ the property, corroborated the evidence of tho previous witness, and statod that the york ol poisoning done this season was the best which he had seen done, and tho results had been very satisfactory. Win, Warron deposed that he was employed by the Messrs Grace in poisoning, and the most of the run had been poisoned last season with good results, Wrj), Miller, sheep farmer, residing at Gladstone, stated that ho hail visited the property of the defendant, i and found "very slight traces of tho j

run ibeing infected with rabbita. Penalty, reduced to £B, including cost3,>y

.. .J.;.'Drummond v. Tinuiorangi.— Same charge. Mr Bunny for plaintiff. Mr Tate for defendant, pleaded guilty on behalf of his olient, who was fined £5 with costs 7s. ' Mr Tate asked to bo allowed to state his cuso for a mitigation of the penalty at the next sitting of the Court at Carterton. Thos.' Pric'o v. Joe. Hall.'—Dishonored promissory note for £IOO. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Jackson for defendant.

The counsel for defendant raised tho'question of jurisdiction of this Court, Objection overruled. Judgment for plaintiff for a'raount'Claimed, Court costs 41s, solicitor's' fees 635.