R.M. COURT.
MASTERTON.-FRIDAY. (Before Col, Roberts, 8.M.) BABBIT OABES.. Smith v Andrews, Mr Andrews for defendant, This case had been held over pending tho decision iu tho appeal case, and His Worship now dismissed the information. His Worship also dismissed the informations against 0, J, Johnston, W. W. Johnston and 0, P. Vallance. Mr Board received judgmont for tho two former and Mr Pownall for Mr Vallance.
Smith v floriana Takatai, This was an action brought under tho 9th section of the Rabbit Act. Mr Beard for plaintiff who pleaded guilty. His Worship imposed a flno of £1 with costs 7s. Smith v Iki Pora Patnwai. This was an information laid under the 10th Beotion of the Babbit Aoi. Mr Beard for defendant who pleaded guilty. His Worship imposed a fino of £5 with Court costs 28b. Smith v. F, A. Sheath. Mr Pnwniill for defendant, who pUded not guilty to failing to destroy rabbits on bis property, In evidence, Agent Orbell stated that he had inspected a small portion of defendant's run on the 26th Sept, last, Again on November 10th he had visited a great portion of tho run and found rabbits numerous on both visits, In December he had again visited tho run and found no apparent reduction of the rabbits. On tho other hand they bad increased. Three men
were sometimes employed in destroying the rnbbits, Did not think this was snllioiont for tho property, Inspector Smith also gave ovidence ■ to finding the rabbits numerous on ' various visits and they certainly had ] increased in January. He then found ' that there were three men employed ' since the notice was served, In his ' opinion defendant had not commenced ( to take the necessary steps to destroy ( tho rabbits as required by tho Act. ! ' For the defence, Mr Pownall asked E that tho information be dismissed, as there was no proof that at the time l | tho notice was served defendant was the owner of tho land meant in tho l | information within the meaning of ' : the Act, f Mr Smith contended that Mr Sheath had accepted and admitted r service and made himself liable. _ F. A. Sheath stated that the land A in question was an undivided Native '' block. Ho was now in occupation with certain natives running sheep on the block. "\ He had not yet acquired any title to the land as the lease was (. not completed. When the notice was received they had only just com- I roenced to take signatures to the lease, He went into occupation of the land about the end of October or the first of November, In September he was neither the owner nor the occupier qf the property, tl By Air Smith: He remembered I saying that ho thought it would injure V his interest with the Natives if oertain of them were served with notices, He had one man employed before the 9th of September, This was in his interest as a probable occupier. By Mr Pownall; Had shared the 1 expense of poisoning with tho Natives N during, the winter. His Worship upheld the objection and dismissed the information. The Court then adjourned.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18930310.2.15
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4364, 10 March 1893, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
524R.M. COURT. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4364, 10 March 1893, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.