THE RABBIT ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3753, 6 March 1891, Page 2

THE RABBIT ACT.

MRBUICK AGAIN PROSECUTED

In the R.M. Court, Masterton, yesterday, before Colonel Roberts. R.M., William Butler Buick was charged for a third time by Inspector W. Smith with failing to destroy the rabbits on his property in the Miki Miki Survey District. Mr Duany appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Pownall for the defendant. C. F. Gayfer, rabbit agent, gave evidence as to the situation of the property of the defendant and the result of his visits. Cross-examined by Mr Pownall: Would swear that defendant was in possession of the property known as Pahirau. Had never ridden through defendant's standing crop, neither had lie drawn the staples from a fense.

Chief Inspector Drummond, sworn, stated he knew the defendant, who had certain properties in the Wairarapa, including certain sections in the Miki Miki. The land specified in the rabbit notice was, as far as he knew, the property of the defendant. He discovered .his from the rate book and a map in the County office. Inspector Smith, sworn, stated that the property of the defendant was'under his jurisdiction. Had caused a notice to be served on defendant under section 8 of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1882, in consequence of reports received from Inspector Gayfer. The notice had been posted to the address of the defendant, "Burnside, Masterton." The property was about 400 or 600 acres in area. One of the defendant's sons had been shooting rabbits since the service of the notice but he did not consider that efficient steps had been taken By Mr Pownall: The notice was posted by himself.

Hid told tbe defendant sufficient steps had not been taken, and was satisfied on this point. Had noticed tbe bush and scrub bad been felled. The stock and grass was in good condition.

F G Moore, clerk to the Wairarapa North County Council, deposed that Mr Buick was a ratepayer wituin tbe Couuty. He was rated for part of section 8, sub-sections 8 to 11, Block XII, Mild Mild. Tbe rates had been paid by Mr Buick, who was still rated for tbe property. By Mr Pownall: There was nothing on the ratebook to show that the property in question was that known as Pahirau.

This was the case for the informant.

For the defence, Mr Pownall submitted that no evidence had been given to show that the notice had been posted to Mr Buick. Mr Bunny contended that the name of Mr Buick had been mentioned. Mr Pownall: There was nothing said about the posting of the notice Ito the defendant. 1 aoi instructed |to oppose a conviction in this case by every possible means. His Worship overruled the objection of Mr Pownall, stating that the notice could not have been sent to any other person than Mr Buick. Mr Pownall submitted further that there was no proof that the land in question was private property within the meaning of the Aot. Neither of the witnesses had sworn that the sections referred to in the information were the property of Mr Buick, and there was no evidence to shown it was private land. Mr Bunny maintained that the proof of the occupation and ownership of the property was overwhelming. The onus of proving that he was not the owner of the property rested with the defendant.

The Bench overruled the objection of Mr Pownad. Mr Pownall stated that he would show by evidence that the case was nothing more nor less than a rab d persecution on the part of the Inspectors. The defendant had taken active steps to abate the nuisance since the first prosecution, and the Inspectors had not considered it worth their while to v'sit the property and see what had been c'onf. The Inspectors had gone on blindly and w»re determined to have the defendant fined in spite of whatever he might do. William B. Buick, sworn, stated he was defendant in this action. He assured Mr Bunny that his rates had been paid. He had received a notice from the Inspectors about the 10th of October. He then had three mer j at work trapping. He subsequently' s»ot two men to fall his bush and scrub, so that there could be no shelter for the rabbits. His sons were also out shooting. There were 313 acres in the property complained of, This constituted the Pahirau property. The rabbits here were not very numerous, and had decreased since October 10th. Feed on the property was knee deep, and he could not get stock to eat it. He saw the inspector and his agents on several occasions, generally about dusk in the evening. Inspector Smith had told him he would have to kill the rabbits on Pahirau or be prosecuted. He replied that he could not leave his harvesting, and would prefer paying the fine. He received a summons three days afterwards. Since the dismissal of the first information he had put on three men to kill rabbits. He could not do anything else. There was too much grass tn trap, and he could not burn the bush as.it was too wet. Neither of the inspectors had been near his property since the prosecution. tie could not possibly do more than he was doing to destroy the rabbits. To Mr Bunny: Had never been told that he must take steps to kill the rabbits. He was always friei' >lly with the inspectors until they commenced destroying his ferces. The cause of the growth of grass on his - 1 - was partly the good season properiy .. ■"-»«aaae in the

and partly the acu... ' '-« number of rabbits. He had active steps to destroy the rabbits since last winter, and had only taken the men away to do the harvesting for about six weeks. The rabbits did not increase during this time. All he could say was that the rabbits could be more easily destroyed two days in the week than by shooting them everyday. A fine of £l, with 9s costs, was then' iflicte r