RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XXX, Issue 2474, 19 May 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AWAMUTU.

*- Ykstkrday.—(Before Captain Jackson, R.M.) BREACH »K TIIK KAIH'.IT ACT. SiiEKr Insi'ectoii v. A. Grant. — Breach of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1882, by nepVcting to take steps to clear off the rabbits from his laud, situated in the Parish of Mangapiko.— John Drummoud, Sheep Inspector for tho provincial district, laid the information.—Mr Hay appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not puilty.—John Drummond, sworn, deposed, that on 3rd May he, in company with Rabbit Agent Hargrave, examined a portion of the defendant's land, and saw a great number of rabbits on it, and no attempt was made to keep them down. Witness laid the information on tho sth May, two days after the inspectionCross examined : Am not satisfied with the steps taken to clear the rabbits. Did not tell Mr Grant what steps to take. Might have had conversations with him. Did not tell him what acts, matters, deeds and things would be necessary to do to destroy the rabbits. Believed he saw Mr Grant's land before. Would not swear he was on it before 3rd May. Had heard from Agent Hargrave by his monthly reports that rabbits were on defendant's land. Did not serve the notice or cause it to bo served. Believed Mr Grant took stops, but not sufficient to destroy the rabbits. Could not say whether he took those steps on the service of the notice. Saw more than one hundred rabbits on that day, (3rd inst.) They were too numerous to count. Knew that under Section 4 of the Act, of 1880, he was supposed to give simultaneous notice to all owners. Found he could not do so. Did not lately instruct Inspector Oldhatn to notify simultaneously persons residing in that district to kill the rabbits. Some months ago gave him a verbal notice to do so. By the Court: In his visit he passed over other lands in that pait of the country, which were infested. Gave instructions to have those people served. Henry Oldham, sub-Inspector for the Waikato and West Taupo districts, examined. Saw defendant, Mr Grant, at his house, on the 10th of January and told him it was necessary for him to do more than he was doing to destroy the rabbits. Saw him again on 14th April when defendant said he had a couple of boys killing, and that he had arranged with a man to go to work on the following Monday to stop the mouths of the burrows. Did not go afterwards to see what the man was doing us he was very unwell. Afterwards instructed Babbit Agent Hargrave to serve a notice on Mr Grant—copy of notice produced.— Mr Hay objected that it was not the original notice, and that no notice to produce was served upon his client and that therefore no evidence of the service could be received.—Ronald Hargrave deposed that he found the rabbits very numerous on Mr Grant's property on 21st March. Called on Mr Grant next day when he promised to take steps to destroy them. Examined the place again on 2Gth inst. and saw a great number of rabbits. Did not see anyone destroying them. Visited the property again on sth, 9th, and 19th April. Saw no one at •work on the sth. Spoke again on that date, Defendant engaged a man that day to go on the property to kill. Found a man at work on 9th April shooting the rabbits, but he had not many when witness saw him. On the 19th went again but found no one at work. By the Court: These visits were paid before the notice was served on defendant. Posted a notice on the 19th in Alexandra by registered letter to defendant, copy of original produced. The remainder of this witness' evidence was corroborative of that of the two previous witnesses. Cross-examined by Mr Hay. Could not swear of his own knowledge that MiGrant did not engage men to clear the rabbits. Went from what he saw himself on the dates mentioned, when except on the 9th April, he .saw no one at work. It was possible that men may have been at work on this block —.'iOO acres—without witness seeing them. —By the Court. Trapping would be the best way of keeping them down. This was the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Hay contended that the Inspectors did not do t l ieir duty, because they did not give notice to others as well as Mr Grant and the other defendants. Notice should havo been gi.-en siuHiltaneouily. No appointment under the Act of 18S2, had been put in by the iuformint. Tho evidence did not sustain the charge. He took a further objection to the information which set forth that Mr Grant did not begin to take such steps and continue to take such steps as in the opinions of the Inspector were neuessary to clear the rabbits off. The Inspector did not explain what those steps were. It is the sole judge of what are the proper steps, and though defendant may have shot and dug them out, because he did not trap, the Inspector had it in his power to say that proper steps had not been taken. The offence was not properly defined in the information. It set forth that acts, deeds, matters, and things had not been done. Noiv he eontended that none of these had been defined, so as to enable defendant to defend the information. Couuse' quoted from Paley. Rex v, Ncild, in support of his contention.— Alexander Grant deposed, that he was the owner of the lots specified in the information, and that he had had men employed killing. He produced a letter from two of the rabbiters, stating that there were so few rabbits that it would not pay them to continue killing any longer. He also paid the sum of £1 for cutting furze, which was a cover for the rabbits. He paid threepence per head for the rabbits.

Sαjib v. A. J. Scott.—The information in this case was the same as in the previous one.—Mr Hay appeared for the defence. The evidence for the prosecution was similar to that in the former. —Allen J. Scott deposed that trapper Sim had been on his place trapping rabbits. The trapper showed witness and a young man in his employment how to set the traps. Witness sent to Auckland for sixty traps, but the firm he sent to had not sufficient to fill the order, but when they had they forwarded the traps which have been kept set since. He had sometimes five and sometimes seven men killing, never leas than five who were constantly at work. Five men were not paid wages by him, but killed for the market. The number of killed averaged from three hundred to four hundred weekly. The rabbits had been very considerably reduced in number before he was served with the notice to kill. People shooting or burning off on adjacent farms drove the rabbits on to his. Jle had no objection to killing, or being compelled to do so, if all did it simultaneously.—Mr Drummond pressed for a conviction. He did not want a heavy penalty inflicted. What he wanted was an example made so that it would be a warning to others. He did not desire to persecute the settlers, but as a matter of duty, he was bound to do his utmost to put down the pest. He thought the lowest penalty the law allowed would answer the purpose.—The Court agreed with Mr Drummond that he had no desire to persecute the fanners, and that he could not be blamed for executing the duties of his otlicc. Same v. R. Skccomije.—Owing to the advanced age and delicate health of Mr Scccombe, the information was withdrew. Sα mk v J. C. GiiiEKsoN.—Mr Hay for defendant. Evidence for the prosecutiou having been given, J. C. Grierson deposed that poison was laid a couple of yeara iigo, and as the rabbits did not tske it, it gave them a good start. Previous to that he had been killing them in great numbers ; in fact had been doing so since he occupied his farm, and would have kept them down more only for the laying of the poison, for during that time noue of those who used to come to his place to kill for the market killed any, consequently they got more numerous. But even allowing for that, only about a third of his farm had. rabbits ou it.

He was absent in England for about a year, and consequently was unable to give personal attendance to the matter. The Crown lands and reserves adjoining, which wfire covered with fern and titree, was simply breeding ground, from which the rabbits spread on to his land in hundreds, and he had to kill those as well as those which were bred on his land. One of Mr Scott's witnesses deposed to taking seventeen traps with him to the land, which, with the sixty provided already, made a total of seventy - seven. — The Bench reserved judgment till next court day—l6hh June —to consider the objections raised by MiHay. The court began on Friday, and the whole of that day Saturday and Monday forenoon was occupied with the native case Kangiamoeakan v. Hemi Kokako and others. It was unfinished on Monday at noon, when it was adjourned till next court day, as were also sonic assault cases. Several debt cases were disposed of.