R.M.COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4354, 25 February 1893, Page 2

R.M.COURT.

,f MASTEBTON-PJttIDAY, a (Before Colonel Botes, E,M). 11 Smith v, Vallance.—Mr Pownall t for defendant who pleaded not guJ^jrfT""' R. Rutherford, agent, statetHlffljJ i he had visited tbe property, On 3 several occasions Bince the notice was served in September in Borne portions of the run the rabbits were numerous. On subsequent visits he had found no decrease in tho rabbits. During bin visits he bad seen ao averago of from five to six men employed on this run destroying rabbits, I Mr Pownall did not cross-examine. _ I W. Smith stated that tho rabbita in this ease wero very numerous and ' difficult to deal with on account of [ their burrowing, He did not think 1 sufficient effort had been made to des- ' troy the rabbits, 1 By Mr Pownall: Mr Bitchie waa | chief of the Agriculture and Stock Do- ! partmont, This property was situated 1 m tho Babbit District of North Wairarapa which has since iAi.abnlislierl by Gazette notice prodSSjSt' For tbe defence, Mr Pownall said that ho would submit that none but the Chief Inspector could lay an in- >• formation or sue for penalties, For his contention it did not matter whether the North Wairarapa Babbit Board was in existence or not, He would' refer His Worship to section 12 of the Babbit Act, 1800, which states that the Chief Inspector Bhall bub for all penalties under the Aot. The Chief Inspector oven then had no power except by the resolution of tho Board or by report to the Governor that tho Board was not doing its duty. Even if the Board has resigned, a rabbit nuisance prosecution cannot takfi placo by anyone. Tbe position 'was rather unique, for practically no one had any power to proceed against them. Further, he'would ask His Worship to dismiss tho information on the grounp that there was no evidence to show that Mr Vallance iad not made every reasonable endeaMff"" to destroy the rabbits after theAtjco had been served, If shown that the operation of of 1882 has been revived the inspectors thai had power to prosecute. 0. F. Vallabce, defendant, staled that he had taken every possible step to keep the rabbits under since the date cf poisoning. He had from six to eight men employed destroying them, He did not think it was possible at this time of tho year to do any more than he had been doing. They had considerably decreased during the last few years. ' Judgment reserved,