MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume LII, Issue 5155, 30 May 1891, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAKO— Fbidat, May 29. (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., E.M.) DEUSK AND 31I3OEDBELY. A fir3t offender was fined 6- and coata for being drunk and disorderly at Pleasant Point. BASTABDY. An information of this kind was withdrawn, tha parliea having agreed upon a weekly payment by the father, BABBIT DESTBTJCTION James Eoberlaon Scott was charged on the information of H. 8 Thompson, Rhesp Inspector, under Section 9 of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 18S2, with failing to take steps to destroy rabbits on run No. 93A m the Mackenzie Country. Mr White appeared for the department, Mr 0. Perry for the defendant. Mr White stated the short fasls of the case. The defendant, a commission agent living m Dunedin. some months ago took up run 93A, 124,000 aoros, on the Hopkins and Dobson rivers, Mackenzie Country. Ha was written to on the 27th March last by Mr Foster, chief inspector, who enclosed him a formal notice UDder Section 9. Mr Foster's letter ntatod that m ordor to ensure simultaneous action with the neighbouring runholderu it would be necessary for Mr Scott to start poisoning not later than the Ist May, and that early notice was been giren him as he waa new to the district and had all his preparations to mate, and aa the run had been only partly dealt, with last year there was tha more need for action this year. No attention had been paid to the notice, therefore the present proceedings were necean&'y. The only oommunieation received from the defendant was a telegram datßd the 25th or 26th met : "Sheep Inspector Thompson has summoned me for rabbit poisoning. Find T cannot, continue to bold the run and must abandon it." H. 8. Thompson, local inspector, showed that he had sent notice to defendant, but had received no reoly and nothing had been done to comply with the notice. At and before the dato of the notice rabhtta wc-ro very numeroua on the run. Visited the run m the middle of May, and bo far as he could see nothing had been done to destroy the rabbits, and therefore laid the present Information. Defendant doea not ri-side n n the run, indeed there is no bouee upon it, nor even huts, except perhapa one small one. | The run is very rough mountainous country, very scrubby m places and affording much scope for the incrnase of rabbits. To Mr Perry : The formal nolica did not name a date when poisoning was to begin, but a letter accompanying the notice d'd. Notices were given later to all the neighbouring runholdors except the ownor of Ben Ohau, this because the run was changing handfl on the Ist May. ~t would bo very difficult to destroy the rabbits on 93a now owing to tho latenoaa of tho season. To Mr White: Complaints about the rab cits on Scott'a run had been made by two neighbouring owners. Tfc was intended lo prosecute other nwners if they did not proceed to destroy, but they were a'l making preparations. To His Worship : Hnd no knowledge that defendant was trying to got rid of the run. Believed he who only a dummy, and he did not know that those he represented wero trying to got rid of it. To Mr Perry : Had no aotunl reason for niiyine 00. bat had strong reaaon to suspect defendant was a dummy. ' To Mr White: The ofcock on the run now belonged to Messrs Simmons. Previously the run was stockod by tho N.M. and A. Company. Reginald Foefer, Chiof Inspector of Stook, gave evidence as to serving notice by post. Received no reply exepfc the telegram aboro quoted. It was a difficult country, but ho supposed Mr Scott knew what ho was undertaking when ho took up tho run. To Mr Porry : He would havo to, pay fix months' ront when ho took it ; bo that the rent, was paid to Hopterriber The upset wa» £150, but Mr Pcott ran it up to £380, honcn he had paid £190. This was tho case for tho proneoutionMr Perry renewed an application ho had made on the oponinc of tho case, for an adjournment to allow him further timo to loot into tho law, but Mr Whito objoctod, unleiß g'OUnda wore ahown. Mr Perry then proceeded to attack the proceedings on three grounds, that tho defondant had not been sufficiently shown to bo the owner of tho run; that tho section under whioh the information wns laid did not apply to runß fit all ; and that tho 'procoedingn wore premature as notico had not been sorvod on ol! surrounding runholdore bo us to secure

simultaneous notion, which should bo a oimdi tion of prosecutions by the department. Afiei arguing these points Mr Perry spoke m mit\ ' gatiin of penalty, shiuld Hin Worship rieoirit Rgainst him, that defendant had made & bad bargain, he had paid cix months' rent and now would have to abandon the run Mr White replied that by defendant's own admission m the telegram he was the owner of the run ; that Mr Perry whs mistaken ac to his second point ; and that the law did not require simultaneous n"tices to be given to neighbouring ruuholder*, but euoh notices as would securo simultaneous action. Mr Thompson, recalled by His Worship, said tho new owner of Ben Ohau, though he had not yet beon served with notice, had begun preparations for poisoning. So for defendant had uiade no preparations. His Worship deciding that it was a obso for conviction, Mr Perry again spoke m mitigation of the penalty! It would not help the Department to fine defendant if he gave, up the run, Mr White poinSed out that the fine would help to pay the expenee of clearing the run. His Worship said it wbb a serious matter, as the whole country would be kept back by one man refuting to do his duty. After a good deal of disoussion His Worship deoided to treat the oaise -the first m the district — as one of caution, and fined defendant £16, the penalty to include the costs of the proseoution.