R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3655, 6 November 1890, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

1 OARTEJITO^—TUESDAY. ' (Before Col. Keborts, R.M.) , Thomas Maokay vHPTunuiorangi, , Failing to destroy tlio rabbits on bis j property situate in tbo Wairarapa i. North. Mr Bunny fer plaintiff, Mr I Tate loi? defendant, The informant 1 proved his appointment as inspector | to |)ie North Wairarapa Rabbit Board f and to'theinspjßfiient stops taken by j defendant to destroy tb'e'rabljila on {lis j properly after receiving due notice so t to do. ) By Mr Bunny: Tho notice was posted in Masterton to the residence of ||je defendant on the Kith August lasjt, Hp lia.d li,i),d no conversation with defendant since thp spryip? of notice". Hp next inspected the pr.op.erty pn tjje2otb August find found the rabbits o$ $0 jngrpase. and again pn ! the 14th Gfitobpr, |n,d jibe ' fabbjts ■ were still on the ijjorgase and no steps ' were being taken tp destroy tjietn, [ The property vk? pat',enclosed wit]i a f rabbitprooffeiico, f To Mr Tate! J have inspected the t property three jipes, I fouji'd the ' property adjacent to Messrs Grace's f the most Infected with rabbits. On j the first occasion the rabbits were ' the most numerous near Messrs j Grace's yoolshed, I believe the i defendant to be the owner of the 1 property aB his stock is on it, I ! addressed the notice to the defendant J to the Greytown Post Office. There j migljt have been some steps taken to , destroy the yabbits but not sufficient,. To the Court: The notice baa not \; i. t

been returned to uie. Tho aroa-otfthe land on which I saw the rabbits might benboutlOOOacres. . Mr Tato submitted that it had not been prorcd that the defendant was the owner of the property and that the notice hud been served, and further that the property was partly enclosed with a rabbit proof fetice, <• ~ In reply to the objections the Court overruled the latter, and in refereneo to the service of the notice it was contended by the counsel; for the informant that the notice was as prescribed by the JRabbit Nuisance Act, which the Court upheld. ; A case cited by the counsel for the defendant, Cooper v Hamilton, and also Lindsay v Walker went to that the information laid, was .bad; The Court reserved its decision on tho point raised. ■■' J Jlreoth vEH Buckeridge, Mr Achosen for plaintiff,': Claim for 15s, monies advancedfor license lees and advertisement.Judgment for- plain-, tiff for amount claimed with costs. MABTERT.ON-THUESDAY, [Before Colonel Roberts, R.M,]- - >R Haro v AkukihiMjkaera, Claim ou promissory, note, £BO, and interest, £lB Bs, , Mr Pownall lor plaintiff. Judgment for amount and ooste.

li, J, Hooper & Co. v M Sohloald, Claim for goods supplied, L 7 6s 4d, Judgment for amount and costs, H J Haigh y HB Latham. Claim L 76 8s 2d., Mr Bunny for plaintiff Judgment for amount and costs, ' L2 13s. Mrs Cole v P Garbes, Claim L2 2a,- Judgment for amount and costs.' J Graham- & Co, v J W Leahy, Claim, LI 12s 8d for goods supplied.: Mr Pownall for plaintiff. Judgment for amount, and costs, 6s.' Same v ; C Collier, Claim, L 5Us fid, Judgment for amount and costs '6s. -A Pownall and Freeth v T M Drumrnond. Claim for amount of promissory note, L 22 Os Bd, with intorest L 4. Judgment for amount claimed,' with costs, 80s, . J Graham and Co. v W Sobloski. r-Claim £4 18s 7d for balanco ot account owing. . Judgment for amount, with 6a costs. . . M Sullivan v. P o'D\iyor.- Claim for cutting and carting 99 tons 19 cwt 15 lbs of flaxat 6s per ton, £3O 9s 9d, MrSPownall for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendant. The plaintiff explained that he had been engaged in Blenheim at the price stated and had not been paid. . . Mr Bunny contended that 'tbe statement of claim was not sufficiently explicit.

Mr Pownall submitted that .this objection should not be taken lite the case was bpeneil.

The Bench upheld Mr Bunny's contention, and tho cose was therefore adjourned dill next Court day.