THE RABBIT ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3898, 28 August 1891, Page 2

THE RABBIT ACT.

2'ailin? to Destroy-

In the R. M. Court this (Friday) morning, before Col. Roberts, R.M., Henry Elder was oharged on the information of Inspector Mackay, with failing to destroy the rabbits on his property at Langdale. Mr Bunny appeared for the prosecution and Mr Beard for the defendant.

The evidence given on the 14th of August was admitted. Inspector Mackay, sworn, stated : The grain laid by Mr Elder was discolored. Phosphorus does not discolor grain, although a larger quantity of phosphorus is being used than is usual.

By Mr Bunny: I have seen no discoloration of grain on other properties, excepting Mr Elder's. The # grain üßed by Mr Elder mußt have been wet.

For the defence Mr Beard submitted that the information znußt be dismissed as it had not been laid by an authorised Inspector under the Act. Mr Mackay had not been properly appointed. The Acc provided that the corporate body should be called the " North Wairarapa Rabbit Trustees," whilst Mr Mackay had received his appointment from v the " Wairarapa North Rabbit Board of Trustees." He maintained that it • vras absolutely necessary that the Act should be complied with in every detail. Further, Mr Mackay had not been appointed an Inspector for the Rabbit Board. He had been ap. pointed an Inspector only of the " Rabbit District," and therefore had no status at all.

Mr Bunny pointed out that Mr Beard had based his arguments on the Act of 1890, whilst Mr Maokay was appointed before that Act came into force. The appointment under the Act of 1886 could be made by a resolution of the Board or by verbal agreement. The Aot did not speoiiy what should be the name of the corporate body. He submtited that His Worship should not give consideration to what was a highly technical point, and bring the whole thing into ridicule. His Worship: We have nothing to do with tbat. This Court does not consider consequences. Mr Bunny maintained that the Act of 1890 did not repeal the Act of 1886, and it was therefore not necessary for a body constituted under the latter Act to comply with the strict provisions of the former. Mr Beard : Assuming the appointment of Mr Maokay to have been made by a body which was not corporate, it is Btill bad, because the Act provides that the appointment shall be made by three Trustees, and in the present case it was made by one only. At the same time I contend, your Worship, that the Act is retrospective and the body was a corporate one when the appointment was made.

His Worship ruled that the appointment was sufficient under the Act.

Mr. Beard: I propose then to call Mr. Mackay. Inspector Maokay, re-oalled, stated that he was not aware when the seal was attached to his appointment He thought the appointment was handed to him with the seal on.

By Mr. Bunny: The seal might have been put on subsequently, bat J don't think so. Mr. Beard: I leave it with the

Bench now to fine the defendant c considers a case made out. I shanK? then probably call evidence in mitigation. The Bench: I shall inflict a

penalty of £4, and Court costs 7s. The hearing of evidence in mitigation was fixed for Tuesday, September Ist, at Masterton. Thomas L. Thompson was also charged with failing to destroy the rabbits on his property. A letter was read from the defendant, who is in Ghriatohurch, in which he stated he was unable to be present to answer the charge, and pleading guilty, asked that a mini* mum penalty be inflicted. Evidence was given as to the service of notice and conditions of

the property, by Inspector Maokay and overseer Chancellor. A fine of £1 and 7s costs was imposed.