RABBIT INSPECTOR.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 162, 10 June 1926, Page 8

RABBIT INSPECTOR.

ON ANOTHER BOARD’S PROPERTY.

TRESPASS CHARGE FAILS

(From Our Own Correspondent.) FEILDING, Juno 10.

Is it permissable for a rabbit inspector of one board to enter upon the domain of another board, without trespassing, was a question that arose at the Magstrate’s Court to-day at Folding when David Pask, rabbit inspector to the Oroua Rabbit Board, was charged with being on property within the Kiwitea Rabbit Board and shooting rabbits on that property when such was prohibited in that locality. Mr Elliott, for plaintiff, held that, as the appointment of defendant had been made, by the Oroua Board, his (Pnsk’s) jurisdiction lay only within the gazetted area of that board. Mr Cullinane, for tho defence, submitted that it was a question of status —an inspector was an inspector and on being appointed by a board, or theoretically by the Governor-Gen-eral, was therefore immune from penalties under the Trespassing Act when his duties took him m any direction. Mr Cullinane quoted considerable extracts from the Rabbit Board’s Act and amendment to sustain his caso. His Worship (Mr R. M. Watson, S.M.) held that he could nob confine the activities of an inspector—there was no provision in the Act to say that any person deemed an inspector should not go anywhere in the course pf his duty in a gazetted Rabbit Board area. In this case Pask was an inspector within the meaning -if the Act and was, therefore, exempt from trespass penalties. His Worship dismissed the case, further remarking that he was surprised an inspector, who had special provision under the Act, should have 'pone such a thing. $ - -'==& . .