R. M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3721, 28 January 1891, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

CARTERTON—TUESDAY,

(Before Colonel Roberts, R.M.) Tlios Mackay v Kohai Mahatakana Failing to keep tlic rabbits destroyed. Mr Bunny for informant, Mr Tate for defendant. The defendant stated that he was the only one in charge of the property, and that he hud taken steps to destroy the rabbits, while tlie others on the same property hud taken no steps to destroy them, and he did not understand why he should be singled out to be prosecuted. Finked 20s and costs lis. Same v H P Tinuiorangi.—Similar offence. Mr Bunny for informant Mr Tate for defendant. The informant deposed to the various inspections of the defendant's property, that the rabbits were very numerous on each occasion, and that proper steps were not being taken to destroy them. Notice had been Bent to the defecdant in terms of the Rabbit Act, 1882. By Mr Tate : 'I he notice was posted hy myself at the Masterton Post Office to the defendant's address in Greytown. The defence was, that the saic 1 . property as described in the notice, did not belong to the defendant in the meaning of the Act, as the land had only very recently been dealt with under the Land Court and no title had been issued. The defendant, along with other natives, only made use of the property by running cattle on it. and the defendant's share in the property (when the title was issued) would only be about 220 acres out of the 1500 acres.

Defendant (to the Court): There is only 100 acres that I know actually belong to myself. By Mr Bunny: I have lived at Hinana for about ten years till this last 2 years, which time I have been in Greytown at the Land Court. I have about 1500 sheep, 15 head of cattle and 5 horses running on the property at the present time. I engaged a permanent rabbiter before any notice was sent, which I have no recollection of receiving. 1 have had a man on rabbiting this two years permanently, and on some occasions I have employed other hands. I do not wish to state that the notice was not sent, but it did not come into niy hands. Mr Maekay, recalled, stated that the notice which he sent to defendant had not been returned. The Court considered that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant had an interest in the property and fined him iOs and costs 7s. Taratahi-Carterton Road Board v. H. P. Tinuiorangi. Mr Beard for plaintiff and Mr Tate for defendant. The counsel for the defendant contended that the particulars should be in the native language as well as in English, and asked for an adjournment. Granted, with solicitor's fee, 21s. li. Fairbrother and Son v. F Sunkell. Mr Acheson tor plaintiffs, claim £i 3s Id for goods supplied, judgment tor amount claimed, with costs Gs, and solicitor's fee, 21s. W. G. MacPartland v. Wm. Parker. M r Acheson for plaintiff. The claim was for balance of account as per agreement for £53 12s 6d for firewood delivered. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 41s, and solicitor's fee 635.