THE RABBIT ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3946, 23 October 1891, Page 2

THE RABBIT ACT.

Further Proitcutloni.

In the Masterton R.M. C»urc this morning, Miriama Te Hori was char« ged by Inspector J. Wallace Smith with failing to destroy the rabbits on her property nt Akura as required by the Act. Mr Bunny appeared for the pontiff. The defendant put in « cetjtfi-. cate that she was too ill to appear.^^^; Inspector Smith stated that bad been given the defendant to des* J3| troy the rabbits. The property comprised about eight hundred acres, |tn which the defendant bad an undivided interest. Since the service of notice proper steps had not been taken to destroy the rabbits, A fine of £1 and Court coils 7s, j was inflicted.

John Campbell was charged by Inspector Smith with a similar offence, and pleaded not guilty. Inspector Smith deposed that notice to destroy had been served upon the defendant in September. Since that date be had visited the property, and found no steps had been taken .to destroy. He saw a number of rabbits and indications of others. On the occasion of a second visit he found the rabbits numerous on patches. In his opinion proper Bteps had not been taken.

The defendant: What more could I do, I put on * trapper and he only caught two rabbits in two days ? Witness: Do you say they are not numerous ?

They might be about the hush. But have yon not seen poison about ? Witness: I have. But poisoning ia not sufficient. The defendant: I cannot get at the few rabbits that are there. They are in the trees and stumps. I hare a boy on now;

The Bench : Hare you any witnesses to call ? The defendant: No. The Bench: Do you wish ,4k give evidence? «■■- The defendant: 1 cannot see the good of it. The Bench: You are fined in the minimum amount of £1 and 7a costs.

Edmund E. Chamberlain was charged with failing to take sufficient steps to destroy the rabbits on his property. Inspector Smith deposed to having served a notice upon the defendant ia September. Since that time he had been twiw on thedefendant'a property and saw a number of rabbits about. Sufficient steps were not, in his opinion, being taken to keep them down. Ho saw the defendant's manager out with a few dogs, but that was all, The defendant: On what portion of the property did you see the rabbits most numerous ?

Witness: Along the fence near Captain Holmwood's. Tho defendant: did you see many rabbits on the occasion of your first visit ? Witness : I saw a good many. The defendant: Did yoj| see twenty ? Witness : I could not say. I saw indications.

The defendant: When rabbits art in the bush do the bucks notjßfmeout and scratch ? Witness : Yes. The defendant : How many scratches would each buck make in • night 9 Would they make fifty 1 Witness : I don't think so. The defendant : Were the rabbits more numerous on the second visit than on the first ? Witness: They were. The defendant: Would they not have doubled if I had not taken proper steps 1 : Witness: In my opinion proper steps have not been taken,

the defendant: Are the rabbits more numerous on my property than on my neighbours ? Witness : They are as bad. The defendant: Did you not say you would watch my property ? Witness: I said I would watch tho whole of the Miki Miki.

The defendant: Are you not summoning me because I have not been summoned before ?

The Witness: lam not. Yon ought to have been summoned lastyear. You have not taken steps. The defendant: Have I not men employed at rabbiting ? Witness : Not to my knowledge. The defendant: That is untrue. I have two men.

The Witness: Your men should be out at four o'clock in the morning, The defendant: My men are out at four o'clook. Have you been there at that hour to see 1 Witness I have not. The defendant: No. Yon- come at dark, when it is impossible to have men out.

Witness: All I know is that you have not taken proper'steps in my opinion. gg The defendant stated bad used every effort He considered it a great bardqHPMt a man who was doing his best to keep the rabbits down should be dragged before the Court. A fine of £1 and 7s costs was imposed. Henry Falloon was charged with failing to destroy the rabbits on bis property at Springbank. The defendant pleaded^guilty, stating that he could not avorait, and was fined £1 and 7s costs.

Henry R. Elder was charged on the information oi Inspector Mackay with failing to destroy the rabbits on his property. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Beard for the defendant.

Mr Bunny stated that it would be shown by evidence that after the expiration oi one month from the time of a previous con notion xabbita were numerous upon the property of the defendant. He would ask that an exemplary fine be inflicted. Mr Beard opposed the taking ef these proceedings on the grounds that a case had been stated for appeal on a previous conviction. He submitted that it would be scandalous to convict upon i cnse which was under appeal. The proper coarse for Hii Worship to take was to adjourn these proceed* ings until after the case on appeal had been decided. He could not help feeling that the Inspector in thia case had absolutely misunderstood his duties. He must have had other motives than the doing of hia duty. Mr Bunny stated he would' take the whole of the' responsibility' of these proceedings ution ' ail - o*4

shoulders. He would ask the Bench to hear this information on the grounds that the previous conviction was quite sound until it was upset. It might be some months before the appeal case came on, and he would like to know it the Act was to be a jead letter in the meantime. If the "TJench refused to hear ibis information it would be a most disastrous thing for the district. The Bench stated that it would allow the case to proceed, but in the case of a conviction the inflicting of a penalty would be withheld till after the appeal had been decided. Henry Winser, sworn, stated that he was an overseer -of the W3irarap« North Rabbit Board. He knew the property of the defendant, which he bad yisited last mouth and this month. He made visits on the 12th, 15th, and 16th days of September. On these days-he went through the main part

of the property and saw a greai many in places. He saw two men With dogs and guns hunting on differout. parts of the run. These were B. the.only steps he saw being taken. He made a report on the matter to Mr Mackayl On September 30th he agaiubvwted the property, and found the rabbits numerous on the Waikaroro frontage to the Mungapakeka . road. There were about eight thousand acres, more or less, infested here. On October Ist he went over the Taipos, and found them very badly infested, the Li'.tle Taipos especially. Inspector Mackay was on another part of the property on that date. He called on Mr Elder on 16th {September. Mr Elder told him that any communication he had to mnka should be made to the Board, and if he wanted to Bee what steps were being taken no could go out on the ran.

By Mr Beard: He had been over about eight thousand acres of Mr Elder's property. Thomas Mackay deposed : I am an Inspector under the North Wairarapa Babbit Board, I was the informant in the case in which the defendant was convicted on August 28th for a similar offence, and am informant in this case. Mr Winser is an overseer working nnder my instructions. In the ordinary coarse of his duty he reported the result of his visits to Langdale station to me. I visited the property on September 30th and found the rabbits rather numerous on the triangle. This contained about 700 acres. Oa the same date I went.over the country to the Mungapakeha road. I was probably over 2000 acres -of it,,and found the rabbits numerous. •I also visited the country to the east of the Mungapakeha road and found rabbits. On the following day I inspected about four or five thousand acres and found the tabbits numerous, At the expiration of a month from the previous conv'Ction the defendant had rabbits upon his property. By Mr Beard : I occasionally give advice to settlers, although it is not my duty. The case being closed, Mr Beard submitted tbat His Worship must dismiss the information, on the ground that there was .no evidence before the Court to show that Mr Mackay was an Inspector under the Board, The Act distinctly stated that the information must be laid by a properly ap- . pointed inspector. Therefore it was absolutely necessary that Mr Mackay be proved properly appointed. Mr Bunny considered that as Mr Mackay was the informant in a previous information against the defendant, -in August, 1891, in which a conviction was recorded, it was su flicient evidence that he was an inspector, as the Court admitted it by convicting. His Worship decided to proceed the case. Mr Beard asked that his Worship would told over any conviction he might be inclined to record, acting on biß former decision, until after the case of appeal now pending was decided. If this were not done the defendant would be obliged to enter another case f4tr appeal before the first was decided. The defendant would be bound to appeal before he could upset a conviction, and it was manifestly unfair that he should have to be put to the cost of two cases for appeal. Mr Bunny opposed this course, contending that the decision of the inferior Court was good until upset by appeal. His Worship must on the evidence record a conviction and could not stay proceedings. His Worship said he was not fully satisfied as to .the course to be taken in the matter. He would therefore stay proceedings for. a fortnight on this case.

The next case against the Rev. J. C. Andrew was to come on at 3 o'clock until which time the Court was. adjourned.