RABBIT CASES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4297, 17 December 1892, Page 2

RABBIT CASES.

Promdingsin the RJ. Court (Before Oolond Mtrls, Mastirlon.)

Inspeotor Wallace Smith v 0.. A Bogers," Peuton," Tmui.

In this case the defendant was charged, under section 10 of the RabAc-, with not having Ukou the re. quisite steps to destroy tho rabbits on Ilia property. 0, A. Rogers was called and pleaded not guilty, He also gave evidence with a view to showing that he had a man at work with a pack of dogs and was taking means to suppress tho pest, Inspector Smith and Rabbit Agent Orbell each deposed that rabbits still infested the property in great numbers.

His Worship said be must record a conviction and would inflict the minimum penalty of £5.

A PROTESTING DEFENDANT.

Inspector Wallace Smith v Rev, J. O.Andrew,of loa Station, Whareama.

This was a oharge under section 9 of the ft\ot, whereby the defendant, it was alleged, had neglected to take the necessary steps to redu'oe the number of rabbits on his property. Mr Arthur Bunny appeared for In. epector Smith and Mr John Andrew acted on behalf of the Rev, Mr Andrew.

At (he outsat, Mr John Andfew applied for a dismissal of the caeo owing to an informality in the order served on tbe defendant. One of the statutory conditions on the reverse of the form bad bean struck out in ink before itsservice, and this, he contended, destroyed tbe validity of the whole document, It did not bear the entire endorsement required by tbe Act.

After considerable argument, Hie Worship said that he would reserve his decision on the point, and that in the meantime the hearing of the case could bo proceeded with,

Rabbit agents Orbell aud Harl greaves gave evidencoas to tbe exist* ence of rabbits on the' run in great numbers, Mr Orbell stated that be believed Mr Andrew bad men employed destroying rabbits, but he had not seen tbein at work, He bad never enquired as to tbe steps being taken to keep down tbe rabbits on lea Station.

Inspector Wallace ' Bmith made similar deposition, He had sjoken and written to Mr Andrew, spying that he was not satisfied and would need to lay an information against him if a remedy was not applied, He did this as bo did not wisb to bring Mr Andrew to Court if it could be avoided. He did noi know how many men were being employed rabbiting on loa Station, The men were strictly enjoined to give him no information, and he could not always go up to the bouse to ask Mr Andrew, He formed bis opinions by tbe number of rabbits observable. Tbey were breeding faster tfaitfotpi '-m killing them, Jo

hia opinion the defendant had hot Sdwroyed'his labbits in the shortest :> lime possible after ho had received ; notice to do so.

; Mr John Andrew claimed that the case should be dismissed. The charge was/that the fiev. Mr Andrew had not taken certain necessary stops, and in that connection there had not been 1 any evidence whatever. Ho : would point out that the information had been laid under section 9 and: not under section 10 of the Act. The fefc raer referred spsoifioally to the steps. to be taken not, as did the latter, to the existence of rabbits on the run,

Hia Worship said that the; oiroura- * stances did not justify Mr Andrew'sinference, fle would over-rale the objection.

Mr Andrew asked if His Worship intended to uphold bid former ruling (oonoerning which a o.tse for appeal had been stated and was now pending decision) that it was neoessary that the ovidence adduced should convtaoe the Inspector that the proper steps had been taken, ■

The Resident Magistrato replied in the affirmative. Mr Andrew called Inßpeotor Smith. The Inspector, under examination, remarked that all his duty required was that he should tell station owners to keep the rabbits down. It «£' ; not his province to give opinions' "'■ to methods. The witness, however, stated in a general way his ideas on that.Bcore. At thisstage, Mr John Andrew eko; ted to oloso his 'case. The rulfl|/ that his ovidence had 1 to satißfy the Inspeotor, left him no option but to do so. The defendant, as before mentioned, had instituted appeal proceedings whereby it would shortly be determined whether the Act did not confer the power upon the Resident Magistrate whioh it had been previously suppospd was vested in the Inspector, His Worship had elected to reserve his decision on the other poiut at issue in the present cas*— that concerning the validity of the order served upon the defendant—and ho would ask him to postpone jutfgnifnt until a date by whioh it was probablo the appeal would hare been dealt with. .. • ■

His Worship consented, and said that he would reserve, his deoieion until Friday, 80th Detwmher.'