BRER RABBIT

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3491, 29 October 1926, Page 3

BRER RABBIT

FAILURE TO DESTROY. FARMERS PROSECUTED. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. K. M. Watson, S.M., throe farmers were convicted on charges of failing to comply with the requirements of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, as to taking measures for the destruction of the pcstJ. Guyloe, of Waituna (Mr. J. E. Barltrop) denied the charge preferred against him.

Inspectors Dorward and Fraser, of the Kiwitea Rabbit Board, gave evidence as to inspecting defendant’s property of 300 acres at Waituna. on June 12, August 17, and on September 14, and of finding the place infested with rabbits. Defendant was told on June 12 that he would have to do more to put down the pest ,and h« informed Inspector Dorward that illhealth had been responsible for :i slackening off of the work, and also a damaged plough. On August 17. Inspector Fraser found the rabbits fairly numerous —they were under every log, and there was no sign of any recent work. Defendant said hia plough was broken and that that had prevented him from making furrows for laying poison, but be had been shooting continually. Witness advised defendant to repair the plough and lay poison. The defendajit gave evidence that he had lived in the district tor many years and had always made a war on the pest. He produced >■, record ot the number of rabbits that had been taken off the property since 191 fi. and claimed that this information supported his contention that he was taking measures to rid his property of file pest. During the period the inspector visited the place he had been ill, and other members of his family were indisposed. Da.ter when the lambing season approached, the ewes required constant attention, and it was not possible to neglect them. Further, they could not be moved, and if ho had laid poison ho would have had to remove the sheep.

After hearing the evidence of a number of witnesses, the Magistrate decided that defendant had not done all he might to put down the pest. A line of fli and costs would be imposed. J. W. Balchelar (Mr. .1. Graham) also pleaded not guilty to a similar charge concerning his property at Waituna.

The prosecuting Inspectors gave evidence as to the rabbits on defendant’s property, and said that although the case was not a bad one, defendant had not complied with the warning to do more to rid the property of rabbits. Defendant said that he and another farmer employed a por/fianent rabbiter to work their properties. He, had poisoned the whole of his 7«0 acre block with strychnine and carrots ,in compliance with the inspector’s instructions. Another smaller property of defendant’s had been similarly dealt with. He had to look after 800 owes in lamb, and milk (10 cows night and morning, and this look up a great deal of his time. He had promised to devote more time to the rabbits when (be, lambing was over.

Counsel put in a plea for leniency on behalf of his client, emphasising the difficulties farmers were having owing to the depressed markets. He submitted that defendant iiad taken

reasonable stops to put down the nuisance. As the case was not a bad one. the Magistrate inflicted a fine of £2 and costs. The next case was that against C. H. C. Leicester (Mr. J. Power), also of Waituna. who pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against him. In their evidence, the inspectors admitted that this was not a bad case, nevertheless defendant had not done all he might have. Inspector Fraser, however, did not agree with the evidence of Inspector Dorward, as he stated that the case was a bad one. The defendant gave evidence of having poisoned on three occasions during the present year, and produced receipted accounts for the expenditure on poison, labours, etc. Supporting evidence was also given. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate took a lenient view of the case, and merely entered a conviction and ordered defendant to pay costs.

Other cases on similar charges wore adjourned.