BY-LAW BREACHES

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12571, 7 March 1919, Page 5

BY-LAW BREACHES

For driving by night Avithout lights, Major Wolfe tvas lined 10s and costs. For cycling on the footpath, William Finuis Harding, Janies Lawler, William David Turner, Charles Winter, Bert Walosby, Thomas M’Calman, Fergus John Campbell and Harry Pearce were each convicted and fined ‘ 10s and costs. William Stanley Milhnm tvas fined £1 and costs for riding a motor-bicycle over a, crossing at other than a walking pace. W illiara Henry, for having permitted ten head of cattle to ho at large in Cutler’s Road, was fined £2 and costs. FAILING TO MAINTAIN. Charles Ezra- Beckett, was proccedol against on the information of his wife. 'Eliza Ann Beckett, with having failed to provide adequate maintenance for his wife. Defendant said that he had a little property and if his wife liked she could have the whole lot of it and ho would try and “ battle along on his old age pension." He was ordered to pay £1 a week, and also to pay £lO off the arrears. A RABBIT CASE. Ernest Alfred Radford, inspector for, the Banks Peninsula Rabbit- Board, who was represented by .Air F. W. Johnston, proceeded against Margaret Coop (Mr Gresson) for failing to destroy rabbits on her property, situated near Toddington. Evidence, was given by Ernest Alfred Radford, who said that’he had repeatedly interviewed the defendant regarding the rabbits on her property, hut little notice had been taken of his representations. Mr Gresson submitted that the information should he dismissed on the grounds of (!) that the notice that had been the basis, of the prosecution was defective, and (2) that no proof had been given that tho inspector had given the defendant notice of the acts that ho required to he carried out. Counsel contended that the Rabbit Nuisance Act. 1918, had cast a new duty on the inspector, in that lie not only had to servo notice, but also to state what acts were to he carried out to clear the land of rabbits. The inspector had been made tho sole judge in the matter and owners of land wore compelled to follow his instructions. Air Johnston said that everyone was presumed to know the law. ’ The defendant had not made any attempt to rid her property of rabbits. Under the old Act the notice given to destroy rabbits had to contain sections 7, 8 and 11 on the hack of the schedule, hut under the amended Act all that Avas required was that the form should contain section 11. The Magistrate said that it was quite clear from tho evidence of the inspector that the defendant’s property had boon badly infested with rabbits. Defendant was not only injuring herself in allowing this state of affairs to continue, hut was inflicting an injustice on her neighbours. Under the circumstances he would have to inflict a substantial penalty. He fined tho defendant £lO and costs-