R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4353, 24 February 1893, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-FRIDAY, (Beforo Colonel Roberts, fi.M). -jnEACnES OF BOROUOH BY-LAWS. wivid Dixon pleaded guilty to allowing his chimney to take fire, Fined Gj, and Court coats 2s. Wm. Darley pleaded guilty to allowing a cow and one calf to stray on Worksop Koad. Pined 10s and Coart costs 2s. Ingram v. R. Wollor. This case was adjourned from last Court day to alow the defendant to ninko application to the Council re. driving horses, Defendant did not appear. The enso was further adjourned in order that defendant might bo communicated with. Police v. Dalgetty. James Scott Dalgetty plpakd guilty to leaving his horses on ihraSin street unattended, Defondant Btated that the horses were undor his notice all the time he <vaa away from them. Fined 2s 6d, with coblb of Court 7a.' Police r G, Woodham. Defendant, who did not appear, was charged with failing to provide for his father. Sorgoant McArdlo stated that since the information was laid, £3 had been paid, and it was now asked that an order bo mado for a payment of one pound per month. His Worship made an order for the payment of five shillings weekly. Babbit Cases. J. W. Smith v 0. J. Johnston. Mr Beard for defondant, pleaded not to failing to destroy the rabbits jßaßffi property in accordance with requirements of tho Act. E. Orbell, sub-inspector, stated thai defendant's property was about 20,000 acres. It was pretty rough all through, Had visited the run one month after the notice had been served, ant 1 went over a considerable part of the run. He found tho rabbits numerous on that visit (Deo Ist and 2nd), He found one man employed destroying rabbits. He had again examined the ground in January, and found the rabbits numerous on many portions of tho run, Ho only saw one man employed on the second visit; there werotwomen employed in October, By Mr Beard: Had made lour visits to the property, Hud acted as agent about six months, Witnefs bad been Inspector under the Rabbit Board in 1891 and visited this property. From what ho saw the rabbits had increased since that date. He was not aware of morn than one man being engaged in the destruction of rabbits. By tho Bench: Was appointed Babbit Agent on 20th June, 1892. J. W. Smith, Inspector, stated that on 22nd and 23rd January ho had visited the property of Mr Johnston. Had gone over a large portion of it and found it very much the same as that reported on by Orbell, Mr Johnston had previously baen served with notice, bnylie had not complied with , tho requirements of the Act, By iJr Beard: Tho property was ', situated iu the Noith County, and was until recently under the jurisdiction of the Wairarapa North Babbit Board, For tho defence Mr Beard said that the information would have to be dis missed ob only an Inspector could lay an information under the Aot and , Mr J, Wallaco Smith held his up. , pointment only as a sub-inspector and there was no power to appoint subinspectors, and even if that power existed the information must be laid by the Inspeotorinthoolcial capacity whioh he holds. Further proceedings should be taken under the authority of the North Wairarapa Babbit Board, or if not they Bhould be taken by a chief inspector ia terms of tho Act of 1886, There was no machinery by which the Babbit Board could be dissolved hence it must be held to bo in existence, Mr Smith said that in tho Act of 1880 all inspectors and sub-inspectors were hald to be inspectors, This Act conferred the powor of chief inspector on all inspectors or sub-inspectors under the Aot his appointment must be held to be that of an inspector, ' Mr Beard said that this Act only ' meant to confirm the appointment's made but did not alter the position of any Chief Inspector, Inspector, or Sub-inspector, Alexander Murray, Manager for Mr Johnstone, stated he had received the notice, but in his opinion it was not advisable to worry the rabbits at this season, On instructions ho emftfffiftfttykne roan constantly at work, Hgp?fßws four, and sometimes five f which was all that ho considered necessary at this season of the year. Taking the proportyas a whole there were fewer rabbits on the property than on previous years. His Worship said he would take time to consider the case and tho oh' jcctioßS raised. Smith v W. W. Johnston. Mr Beard for the defendant pleaded not guilty and the defonce raised was the same as in tho former case, E. Orbell stated that ho had visited the property in October and went over a considerable portion of it, finding the rabbits numerous. In the following month and iu December had again inspected the property and found the rabbits had not decreased. Mr Smith proved the service of the notice, and gave similar evidence to that given in SJjfflhvious case, It did not appear mn sufficient work was being done to destroy the rabbits, For tho defence, Mr Holmes, manager for Mr Johnston, stated that he had been in charge of this property for seven years, At present, there were considerably lessrabbits on every portion of tho run than at any previous time. When agent Orbell mado any complaint, witness had put on extra men to destroy them. Had always done all that was possible, but did not approve of disturbing the rabbits at this time of the year, Judgment reserved as in previous case,