RABBIT PROSECUTIONS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3723, 30 January 1891, Page 2

RABBIT PROSECUTIONS.

In the R.M. Court this morning, before Colonel Roberts, R.M., David Carman was charged with failing to destroy rabbits on Ins property to the satisfaction of the Inspector. The defeudant admitted there were rabbits on his property' but denied that they affected the carrying capacity of the land. Chas. F. Gayfer, rabbit agent, deposed that he knew the property of the defendant, which he had visited on November 12th. Ho found a good many rabbits, and indication of others in the scrub, mostly in the Long Gully. On December 16th he again visited the property and found the rabbits considerably increased on the [back portion of the property. Complained to defendant's sons of the increase, and told them to acquaint their father with tho fact. Again visited the property on J7th January in company with Mr Harvey, and found the rabbits still numerous. On the first visit he saw three men employed rabbiting, but on his last he saw only one. Mr Carman resided on the Taratahi, and his sons looked after his run.

The defendant: Do you know that I have spent lots of money in rabbiting on my property ? Witness : I daresay you have. Defendant: Do you know that it is impossible to exterminate the rabbits from my run ? Witness : I daresay it is. Defendant: Aro you not aware that I have been paying good wages to men to kill rabbits, and they have left because they could not make living ? Witness: They could not have been much good then, . Defendant: Are you aware that I have not dismissed a rabbiter from my employ ? Witness : If they left of their own accord they were very dissatisfied men. The defendant complained that the Act did not permit property owners to destroy rabbit 3in the shortest possible time. Defendant (to wituess): What is the shortest possiblo time for destroying rabbits ? Wituess: It depends upon the number of men put on. The defendant asked for au adjournment in order to allow him to engage a solicitor. The Bench replied that it could not now grant an adjournment. Defendant: I will have to be fined. I cannot afford to employ a solicitor. lam at the mercy of a dishonest Act. James Harvey, rabbit agent, deposed to haviug visited the property of the defendant on 17th January, and found rabbits very numerous in patches. He saw but one man rabbiting. The defendant: What do you consider a reasonable number of men to be employed on a run of 2000 acres to reduce the rabbits?

Witness: It is not my place to answer that question. J. Wallace Smith, inspector, deposed that defendant was served with a notice on 10th October, Since that date it had been reportod to him that the rabbits had increased on the property. He had himself visited the property and found the rabbits numerous. The defendant stated that it was very difficult to destroy rabbits on his properly, which was very rough. The carrying capacity of his land had not been affected. It was impossible for him to do more than he had done. He could kill the rabbits to satisfy himsolf, so that his stock would not be injurod, but he could net satisfy the inspectors. His property was well fenced, and he had two rabbiters, besides his sons, engaged killing. If he was to be fined under the Act, then any person in the district was open to prpsecution. The Bench inflicted a penalty of £*2 and 7s costs, At the same time it intimated that evidence in mitigation could be heard. Defendant: But I shall have to pay witnesses to attend Court. The Bench : It is only a maoter of calculation. Charles Holmwood was charged by Inspector Smith with failing to destroy the rabbits on his property in the Waipoua Block, The dofendaut pleaded guilty, and \iiiii Jiued, £J,and coc4s lQs,

Messrs Holmos Bros, were charged with failing to destroy the rabbits on their property at Matahiwi. Mr H. Holmes appeared, and pleaded guilty. Inspector Smith proved the service of notice on the defendants, and stated that he was not satisfied with the steps taken for the destruction of the rabbits, which were still numerous. A fine of £2 and 15s costs was inflicted. <^ Messrs Williams & Beetham were charged with failing to destroy tho rabbits on their property at the Waingawa to the satisfaction of the Inspector, The defendants pleaded not guilty. ■ V James Harvey, rabbit agent, deposed tbat he visited the property of defendants on the 20th of December, and found the rabbits numorous on about 20 acres of the flat adjoining the Waingawa river. Visited the property again on the 12th and 19th of January, and found the rabbits still numerous. Saw no person killing, Spoke to Mr H. Williams about the • state of tho property. J. W. Smith, Inspector, deposed to notice having been served on Mr Beetham on December 15th. Ho visited the property on January 10th in company with Agent Harvey and found the rabbits numerous flat. Saw nobody destroying tJ|lm. Also spoke to Mr Williams about the property, and visited it again subsequently and found , that no steps had been taken. The ground complained of was a breedingground for rabbits. To the Bench: There are four hundred aoreß in the property. Mr W. H. Beetham said he would like to make a statement, from which it would be shown that he had taken the most intelligent steps injfc the interests of tho district. TbiNt., small portion of land complained of was an oasism a desert. The rabbits; on the riverbed surrounding were numerous. The rabbits on the thirty acres of land were allowed to accumulate, and were then surrounded and destroyed. This, was a most intelligent means of destroying rabbits. The locality was a rabbittrap by nature. The advantage of this small oasis to the district was . iacaloulable, as it was a most effective ■ means of destroying the rabbits. He did not tell the inspectors of the objects of allowing the rabbits to accumulate, because he wished to : test their intelligence as officials. The time for making the periodical onslaught had just arrived, Thiß wa3 all he could offer in defence, The Bench inflicted a minimum . penalty of £1 and 7s costs.