THE RABBIT NUISANCE ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17913, 19 April 1920, Page 8

THE RABBIT NUISANCE ACT

PROSECUTIONS AT OPIIIR. Eighteen chargO3 of failing to destroy rabbits wore h'rard by Mr 15. j>. Alosloy, 8.JV1., at o[>liir on Friday lust. Mr W. B. Mn lining, iti.s])octor of stix:!v. jmifooutod. 'J lie magistrate rwcrved his liccision until all tho ciisoe were hoard, tuid then inflicted lines as follows:—F. Dotinolly (2000 aeivs), £10; J). Kinnoy (1700 acres) £8; li. M'lntosh (280 non-3), £5; T. Iluddkistone (SCO acres), £6 John Love (500 acroe), £i>; (J. Nay lor (2COO acres), £7; J. Nmylor fiso nvrcs), £4; K. J. ftloran (500 acres), £5; J. Sloano (4COO aaree), £10; L. Donnelly (200 acres), £\; A. Kinnoy (4000 acres), £10; ti. Asquith (260 acres), £4; J. G. Ryan (203 ivcros), £3; .1. Ball (2500 uares), £6; J. M. Ixwo (600 acres), £o; J. Hamilton (5000 acres), £10; A. Arthur (1700 acres), £7. In tho caso in which Robert Jopp, of Moutoro Station, was tho defendant, tho etook inspector eaid that thcro were about £000 acres of freohold and 15,000 acres of leasehold in tho property. Tho leaso expired at tho end of Jlaxoh, tho defendant retaining about D6OO acres, and tho balance of the run (7000 aorea) being eot aside as a soldiers' run. Tho freehold was clear of rabbits, good work having been dono by fumigating, poisoning, etc., and until the last year satisfactory work had been dono on flie loosohold. Tho defendant was warned on Docember 16 by Inspector M'AUister, and a notice was served on December 20. A further inspection waa made on January 15 by Inspeotore Manning and M'Alliffter, and it was found that Ino notice had not been complied with, about 10,000 acres being infected. Since tho information was laid tho defendant had called at the stock inspector's office at Clyde and endeavoured to havo the charge withdrawn. Upon the inspector refusing, the defendant went to tho Dunedin office of the department, and as a result Mr 'Wills, principal district inspector, had made an inspection of tho run in company with the inspectors, and had found it in very bad order. Th© stock inspector also stated that, on account of Mr Jopr>'s good record, he had been reluctant to bring this case before the court, but he had his duty to perform. Mr Jopp could, and should, have kept tho rabbits clown.

'lie magistrate, vtt inflicting a fine of £10, said the fact that a considerable area of freehold was free from rabbits showed what a man could do by taking energetic stepa to deal with tho pest. JVom the inspector's statement tho defendant had a good record, but this waa no exense for not keeping the rabbits down on the area of country of which he was losing tho lease. Discussing the cases generally, the magistrate said it was difficult for the court to arrive at the amount of fines to be inflicted in each inataiice. It appeared that the rabbits wero going from bad to woreo. He know that some farmers did considerable work, and also knew that during tho last year or bo a considerable profit had been made by certain farmers out of the rabbits. Ho thought that all farmers should try to destroy and exterminate the rabbita at once. The law was such that defendants could do very little else but plead guilty. He had to administer the iaw. It might bo a good law, but it was hardly consistent with the ossenco of justice. Tho inspectors, fortunately, were willing to help, and were not unduly hard. There might be some inspectors who wero prejudiced, but that was not the case that day. Ho was satisfied that the inspectors had taken a reasonable and proper oourse. Thero was not one case of animus. If there had been it would have been hia duty to deal with it. In inflicting tho . fines ho had considered the fact that tho inspections had been made and the notices served during holiday time. The fines had also been inflicted according to tlic area of land infested and the amount of work done.