THE RABBIT ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3947, 24 October 1891, Page 2

THE RABBIT ACT.

Further Prosecutions.

INSPECTOR MACKAYU. j/o. ANDREW. J. 0. Andrew was charged with a breach of the Babbit Act in failing to take sufficient steps to destroy the rabbits on his property at lea. Mr Bunny appeared for the informant and Mr Beard for the defendant.

Robert Harcombe, sworn, stated : I am Clerk to the North Wairarapa Babbit Board of Trustees, and as such record the minutes of the Board. The appointment of Mr Thomas Mackay as Inspector to the Board appears on the minutes.

By Mr Beard: The seal wa3 placed upon the minutes in August, 1890. Henry Winser deposed: I have recently, as overseer to the Babbit Board, visited the property of defendant. On September 11th I found the rabbits very numerous on Cliff Hill, Cliff Flat, and the. racecourse fiat. On the latter portion of the property I saw about four hundred rabbits as I was passing through. I saw no one at work destroying the rabbits. I visited again on October 2nd and went over the Stony Ridge and Wainiimi, Mr Mackay was with me on this occasion. The rabbits were very numerous on about six thousand acres, and on that portion of the property near the homestead, covering about three thousand acres. I saw nobody at work destroying. On October 3rd we visited other portions of the property and found the rabbits numerous. The boundaries of the property are not rabbit-proof fenced. I went over about twelve thousand acres altogether and found the rabbits numerous.

Thomas Mackay deposed : lam an inspector under the Babbit Nuisance Act appointed by the Babbit Trustees. As such I caused a notice to be served on the defendant on April 25th last. The notice was served as I was aware that the defendant had rabbits on his property. Alter serving the notice on the Bth of June, I complained to Mr Andrew about the way in which the poison was being laid. I was dissatisfied because I found that the rtbbits had taken the poison and still there were a large number running about. Mr Andrew promised to lay fresh poison. I visited again in company with Orbell on July 6th and found work going on, some in a satisfactory and some in an unsatisfactory manner. Mr Andrew, on being spoken to on the matter, promised to consider our suggestions. On Jaly 28th things I were in about the same condition, I the rabbits being very numerous near the homestead. I visited on the 6tb, 7th and Bth of August and inspected six or seven thousand acres, and there ' were generally a considerable num--1 ber of rabbits. When I visited subsequently with Mr Winser I found the rabbits still numerous. Rabbit proof fencing was not ereoted on the boundary of the property referred to although fencing was going on. The witness v»as cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Beard.

For the defence Mr Beard submitted that tbe information should be 'dismissed, as it stated that the defendant did not take necessary steps " immediately" after receiving notice, whilst the Inspector did not visit the property for some days after the service of notice, and could not therefore say whether the defendant had or had not taken " immediate " steps. He also maintained that Mr Mackay had not been properly appointed as Inspector, and that there was uo evidence to show the constitution of a body corporate in accordance with the Act,

Mr Bunny replied at some length, after which the Bench intimated that it would hear *,he defence.

The further hearing of the case was adjourned till Friday next.