MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Feilding Star, Volume 3, Issue 471, 26 February 1925, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

FOR TNIGHTLY SITTING IfO-DA Y. (Before Mr R. M. Watson, S,M.) BY-LAW BREACHES. Esther .Craven, Eric Harrison and Ah Low were each 'charged with having been found riding their bicycles oil footpaths within the borough, contrary to thy by-law. A fine; of 20s and costs was inflicted in each case. SUNDAY TRADING. Fred. Groom bridge, confection?)', of Feilding, was charged with selling ice cream, to persons unknown, for consumption off the premises at Tangimoana seaside resort on a. Sunday. Sergeant Cahill appeared for the prosecution and stated that the accused was a regular Sunday visitor to Tnngimoana, where he took refreshments and chocolates for sale on the beach. These goods were consumed by visitors away lrom the place where they werot being sold. Mr Graham, appearing in,- the accused, pleaded guiit.v and outlined the facts of the case.

In imposing a fine of 20s and costs, his Worship remarked that the circumstances outlined by counsel, Mr Graham, were obviously correct, but a nominal line would act no a warning to others to adhere strictly to the requirements of the Act. BREACH Off ORDER, On a breach of his prohibition order, Harry Cahill pleaded guilty and was fined 20s and costs. THROWING STONES. Charles Henry Jacobsen, living in Hobson street, was arraigned on a charge of throwing stones to the damage or danger of Sarah Qua id oilier property. He pleaded guilty and said he was very sorry for what -ho bad done. The Magistrate interposed that such actions would cause a liability of a £5 fine. In this case he would impose a fine ol 40s and costs and hoped that this would act as a ing to others. NOT REGISTERED. Leonard S. lvoberstein, living at Ohakea, appeared charged with having failed to become registered under the requirements of part 3 of the Defence Act, within certain time-and manner prescribed. lvoberstein stated that he always understood that when lie left school the headmaster had sent his name to the Defence Department, hut lie saw a notice in the post office a pel made inquiries. He was now registered. Sergeant-Major Ryan said he did not think lvoberstein was a “dodger” from what he knew of him. Lt must be made clear, however, that every young man, as soon as -he leaves school, no matter whether he lives three miles or 16 miles from a training, centre, he must register. A fine of 4.3 and costs 16s was imposed. CIVIL LIST. Judgment by default was given plaintiff in the following undefended civil actions: Commissioner of taxes v. W’ilmot Boyce, coots only £1 Os. W. Tl. Bain and Co. y. Steve Havill, L'l6 Is 6d, coots £2: 15s. A. A. AleBride v. Rosenberg, £42, costs £4 Is 6(1. AY. Winn and Co. v. S.‘W. R. Kvans £4 170 6d, costs £1 3 S 6d. Alfred Han nett v. A. J. Sliearsby, £2O, costs £2 16s. J. A. Shaw v. Vernon Eg gel's .£4 IDs nd, Costs £1 13s 6d. L. T. McLean, v. E. Devonport £136 13s Del, costs £6 17s 6d. Judgment Summons —No order was made against David Arapira for £6 |l s fid, but-he agreed to pay something monthly off the amount ingRABBIT NUISANCE CASES • George Fredrick Sou ness, on behalf of tfee Apiti-Rohangina. Rabbit Board proceeded against George Malcolm, an. occupier of spine 200 acres oi land in the Board's area in the vicinity ol Apiti. Mr It. M ackie, Bulls, appeared lor the Board and Mr H. Mclntyre appeared for the defendant Malcolm. Both counsels admitted all technical points to facilitate the progress of i,!ie cjise. Air Soiiness, rabbit inspector, said that h e had issued notices to all property holders for a general poisoning to be carried out to secure the best, .results. On August 30, he visTU ed defendant’s -property and found that some strychnine poisoning had been carried out and some of the sections were fairly clear of rabbits. In November he paid another visit and found rabbits in large numbers all over the property. He did not send another notice because he thought the defendant would do somethingTo rid his property. On his final inspection he found rabbits largely in possession. .He djd not think the defendant had taken any; reasonable steps to carry out a poisoning of rabbits,. The Stock Inspector accompanied him on his final visit. The Bench: What- would the time and cost -fte for poisoning this property ? Witness: With two men. it should take about four days and cost £5.. Mr 0. <>. Mackley, Stock Inspector for the Feilding district, .fcajd that

on Ids visit with the Board’s ., tor to the defendant’s property, b£ i; saw '24 rabbits in 20 minutes. He v again saw< seven at once while, jumping over a fence, lie could nee no evidence of work being done and be. regarded the case as a bad one on the point of view that it was in a clean area. For two men to do t-lie poisoning, he thought they would take about 5 days. The cost would estimate at about £■>. No reasonable attempt, in liis mind, had been made by the defendant. Mr Mchitrye: Did yon find any re- , cent burrows? s \ l Witness: There were plenty of recent burrows. Tliere were no cobwebs surrounding the openings, and in some wei’c-a number of young rabbits. * Mr MqTntyre: 1 will admit there are no eobwolijj nbout- yofi. George Malcolm, the defendant, said be instituted a pollard poisoning in August and as a result bad found ,■". r % 45 dead in the .paddocks. He also carried out some strychnine poison- • ing. He did not carry out a general - poisoning but poisoned in where be saw rabbits. He did not think this was necessary because his propert ywas not badly infected. Other means were employed to rid Lhe land of rabbits, .be himself hay- • ing done trapping and another person had been accustomed to shooting over the affected areas. He was safe isfied that lie had clone all that bad been required of himAlexander McKenzie, a labourer. , living at Apiti ~said be had been em >■ • ployed by the defendant for poison* ing' about 25 acres. The other sections at the time were' practically; free of rabbits. He said he could see evidence of poisoning having been done prior to August. He would not iswear that the two inspectors were wrong when they said the property was bad with rabbits. Cyril Robinson, a* clergyman, gave evidence that be was accustomed to • shooting rabbits on two sections of defendant’s property. He could not say there were many rabbits in evidence and especially of late there had been very few. He saw traces of T>oisoning but could not say when it had been done. Tn the township, he had seen a good number of rabbits. av i “It is quite clear.” said His Worship. “that the defendant did not' carry out his obligations under the requirements of the Act. when hie neighbours di(T7” A fine of £ls was imposed. A similar action is proceeding against T. H. Crnine. The adiourned hearing of the case. > against S. Straham was further ad- ' ' • '■ *7*’« ► •• -* ■ . - ■ t t* • journed in the absence of Mr Taylor.