THE COURTS.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume 29, Issue 1528, 11 February 1899, Page 3

THE COURTS.

WARDEN'S COURT, NASEBY. Tuesday, Febbuaby 1. Jas. Dawson.—Residence area on main road between Naseby and the mill, Mr Cutten for applicant Mr Cutten explained that the area applied for had belonged to the late Richard Webber who had expressed his intention of handing it over to applicant to cover a debt due to him, but that before this was done Webber became ill and died. The Warden said that he had a letter from the Public Trustee, in whose hands Webber's estate was, to the effect that the site now applied for was a part of the estate. Mr R. Murray, manager of the Mount Ida Water-race, stated that Webber had been indebted to the Crown for water supplied.

Jag. Dawson, applicant, gave evidence that the residence site he applied for had belonged to the late Richard Webber, who was indebted to him and who had exoressed his willingness to hand the site and hut over to witness on account of that debt. The debt was about £ls. Webber had. however, been taken ill before the transaction was completed.

Henry Jacob stated that on the Wednesday preceding the Saturday Webber took ill he had said to witness that he intended that afternoon to transfer the hut to Dawson for a debt.

His Worship said he would communicate with the Public Trustee beEore finally dealing with the application. Jas. J. Cane.—Water-race. Little Kyeburn. with right to three Government heads of tailwater for a claim above.—Granted. John Hore (Mr Herdman).—Six months' protection to licensed holding, Main Gully, pending result of an appeal—Granted for three months.

B. Murray.—Deviation part of race Xo. 7246 (Mount Ida Water-race).—Granted. _ Alex. Cameron (Mr Herdman).—Prospecting dredging area, Upper Taieri River.— Granted.

Henry Jones (Mr CatteD).— Prospectinodredging area, Taieri River, below Hyde.— Withdrawn.

A. L. J. Taifr (Mr Cntten).—Prospectinodredging area. Taieri River, below Mathison's crossing, near Hyde.—Granted. Ohas. Hore (Mr Herdman).—Licensed holding, Main Gully.—Mr Herdman explained that the applicant was willing to take the grant, excluding the streetsApplication granted subject to alteration of plans 60 as to exclude streets. Thos. Costello (Mr Cutten).—Two special claims, Upper Kyeburn.—Recommended to Minister for grant. Kyeburn Gold Dredging Co. (Mr Cutten). —Special claim.—Struck out, a fresh application having been lodged.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, NASEBY. Wednesday, February 8. prosecutions under rabbit act. Inspector of Stock v. P. M. Law.—A charge of neglecting to destroy the rabbits on his land.—Adjourned to Monday, 20th inst. Inspector of Stock v. J. Fenton.—Mr Cutten, who appeared for defendant, and pleaded on his behalf guilty. He asked that a decision should be deferred for, say. six weeks, in which case his client would mdertake to erect a rabbit-proof fence round the land complained of. The Inspector of Stock strongly objected to this course. The case was an aggravated one, and the presence of rabbits on the land was causing loss to defendant's neighbours. Defendant had consistently neglected to take efficient stops to reduce the nuisance. In the witness box the inspector said that on the oth December he served Fenton with notice to destroy the rabbits. On the 13th wrote telling him that owing to the bad state of the ground writer would be compelled to take proceedings. On the 16th he saw defendant who asked that witness should not be too hard on him as he was about to erect wire-netting. "In the meantime," witness replied, " you must get rid of the rabbits now on the ground." Witness could get no satisfactory assurance, and, in fact, no effie'ent steps were taken, as on January 25th, on visiting the ground, witness could see no appearance of work having been done. To Mr Cutten: Under pressure Fenton had last year employed Devinny's boys for a time. What witness complained of was that he failed to do nor had he ever done consistent work. He did not expect any man's ground to be absolutely free of rabbits, nor did he specify any one mode of destruction so long as they were destroyed. Defendant might have over one sheep to the acre, but if he had 1000 the rabbits were there in too great numbers. Defendant had removed some of the scrub shelter about 12 months ago, but he should dig the animals out and destroy their harbours. He admitted no serious difficulties in poisoning. There was, of course, some slight danger, and the farmer must exercise care, but the possible damage from this cause was nothing to what the rabbits did. It was about the shearing time when he wrote, but the case had been pending for months. His Worship imposed a fine of 40s, and costs 8s 6d.

Inspector of Stock v. Agnes M'Lennan.— Defendant's brother, who appeared for her; pleaded guilty, bnt, in mitigation, said thit it was very difficult on a small place to move the stock about in such a way as to escape risk of poisoning them. Last year they had lost GO. The Inspector said that rabbit destruction was not properly looked after, and that serious injury was done to neighbours. Indeed he had determined that if not more work was done the department would have to do it at her expense.

A fine of 20s and costs was impose!. Inspector of Stock v. W. Forrest.—Mr Cutten, for defendant, pleaded guilty. The Inspector said that owing to the circumstances of defendant he bad long held his hand, indeed ordered his rabhiters to prepare poisoned grain, ]6 or 201bs, for defendant, but the latter, although informed of the fact, had not called for the poisoned grain.

His Worship, in face of this neglect, fined defendant £2 and costs.

Inspector of Stock v. M. Graham.— Defendant pleaded guilty. The Inspector said that in this case there were extenuating circumstances. He suffered by proximity to the defendant in the first case, but he could not prosecute one without the other.

Fned 20s, and 10s costs. Inspector of Stock v. R. L. Francis.— Defendant pleaded guilty, but said he had poisoned on 27th, 28th and 30th. He was indeed jnst bock from poisoning when he received ntice. His poisoning in September bad failed. The inspector stated that nothing bad been done from September until last week. Damage was being done to neighbours of defendant. Fined 40s, and costs 7s. CIVIL. G. W. Mason v. Ah Hoe.—Claim £2 6s for water supplied from Hit or Miss Waterrace. Mr Herd man for plaintiff, Mr Cutten for defendant, Mr Cutten p'ended on behalf of defendant inability to pay. but Plaintiff. G. W. Mason, in evidence said that on a previous occasion, on which he had trusted defendant he had had to wait 10 yws for bis money ; that be was washing down old bottom ; that be got his gold every night and washes up as he goes along. —Judgment for amount claimed, with costs lis.

Caldwell v. Mabin and Mitchell.—Adjourned for proof of service. Win. Ball and Son v. F. Smith Mr Cutten for plaintiffs. The amount of claim had been met with exception of costs.—Judgment for £1 coots.

Lumlon v. Chin Wah.—Claim £l7 Ge Cd on dishonoured cheque. Mr Cutten for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, by default fur amount claimed with costs. £1 10s fid

Y..unif v. J ti. Kod-lell Claim IH*. Mr mifi. for plaiii'iff. -Ju !>fii.-iit for amount <•li.iin.-d with en-'« '.»

I.Min v. \|.. ::<>. .„ Mitc!cH.— Claim i!l 14* M .11 '...,. UM-.1 cheque. Mr Cuttin for plain ill .—Judgment, for amount claunod with costn, l'Jc,