S.M. Court

Cromwell Argus, 6 March 1905, Page 5

S.M. Court

Before F, J. Burgess, Esq., S.M. Tha E-ibbit Prosecution Case, P. D. Baxter, stock inspector, v "0. C, Harding for failing to dt»y roy tho rabbits on his laud. Evidence »V*a q'.veu by plaintiff and Agent Munru thai they visited the property of defendant ou the 3rd, '2sth December and 11th January, and each time the rabbit* were more plentiful. Tho only part that any work was done was around the crop. Evidence was <:ivon for the defence by Mr Harding, aenr, D. frevathau and defendant that sufficient steps were taken to eradicate the pest, but as fast aa they destroyed them they kept coming in from Crown Lands and neighbors' property. It was stated that 3,207 large rabbits had been trapped in 10 weeks, no couut having been kept of small ones. In giving his decision His Worship said that the prosecution had not established a clear case and ho would give the benefit of tho doubt to tho defendant and dismiss the case. Civil Cases. D. A. Jolly and Sons v. G. Griffiths. Judgment by default for £3 I7a (3d, with 10s coat. McWhirter v. W. Waido claim of £5 Bs. value of 80 rabbit traps, 2 toutand iltet'. Mr Payne, atitiou rabbit inspector, was called and produced the agreement eigued as the confcruct. Mi Brodrick asked for an adjournment to next court dny, to allow him to banu th, BtiUon clerk and other witnesses Granted, defendant to bo allowed 26 as expenses and £1 la professional fee. Official Assignee in Bankrui toy v. Daniel MoLennan.—Adjourned.^ E. Roberts v. Rising Sun Gr.D. Co. Application to take evidence. Mr Scott director, and L. Harris, secret try, gav evidence for defendants. This case aros' over a cliim for £lO 10s, which plaintitt claims he is entitled to. It appears that Messrs Scott and Gilkison instructe plaintiff to purchase some timber fo their cliim, and when the account cam before the company who had t»ken ovei the claim they decided to grant M> R'i'a't £4 9a 6d, being at the rata o> & pit cent.