MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume VI, Issue 309, 28 April 1914, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, April 24TH, 1914.

Before Mr E. RAWSON, S.M.)

CIVIL CASES. W. J. Parkinson (Mr Swarbrick) v. W. J. Hoffman, claini £62 14s 91. The statement of claim set out that on or about the 14th day of February, 1903, the plaintiffs and the defendant and nine other'persons executed a certain document or guarantee whereby the said plaintiffs and nine other persons, in consideration of advances made or to be made to the Te Rau-a-moa Cooperative Dairy Co., Ltd., by the Bank of New Zealand, did jointly and severally guarantee payment to the said bank. The Dairy Co. was indebted, to the bank in the sum ol £I3BO 4s 11d, which sum the bank required the plaintiffs, defendant, and nine other persons to pay to the bank. The sqm which each guarantor should have paid as his portion is £62 14s 9d. The defendant has not paid the said sum, and the plaintiffs havetogether been compelled to pay to the bank the contribution of the defendant. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs £4. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Thomson Bros. (Cox and Luxford) v. H. Raynor, claim £22. By consent ordered to pay £2l by instalments of £1 per month. D. O’Shea (Cox and Luxlord) v. B. A. Beattie, claim £4 ss. No appearance of defendant, who was ordered to pay amount claimed forthwith, in default. 7 days’ imprisonment. DRUNKENNESS. On a charge of being found drunk in Alexandra Street, M;ch el Burke was remanded for a week for medical treatment. A similar charge was preferred against a man named Moon by Constable Wade, of Kihikihi. A fine of 5s and costs I2s was inflicted. ON LICENSED PREMISES. A native named Moke Tepete, who had a prohibition order against him, appeared in answer to a charge of being found on licensed premises at Ngaruawahia. Accused explained that his object, in visiting the hotel was to look for some friends. On the understanding that he refrained from visiting hotels in future, he was simply ordered to pay costs amounting to 12s. * A native appeared in answer to charges of obtaining liquor, and also with being found on licensed prenbises. He was fined £3 14s 6d, or -in default 9 days’ imprisonment. Fouite;n days were allowed in which to pay. SHOOTING GAME OUT OF SEASON. P. McSweeney and A. Bell were charged by the police (Constable Lander) with shooting grey duck and teal out of season. A plea of.guilty was entered by Mr Luxford (Cox and Luxford), who appeared for the defendants. For the defence it was alleged that defendants were out rabbitshooting. On seeing the game the temptation proved too great. It was notdone wilh the intention of deliberately breaking the law. His Worship declined to accept the explanalion, remarking that if the practice was allowed to continue, there would be no game left in the district. They were liable to a penalty of £2O. Each of the offenders would be fined £5, and costs 7s. ASSAULT.

Hiri King, a native, against whom were several previous convictions, was charged by Constable Wade with assaulting an elderly native named John Gage. Accused pleaded guilty under provocation. He was evidently under the influence of drink and did not recollect the circumstances.

John Gage gave evidence to the effect that accused made some objectionable remarks to a Maori woman, and witness remonstrated with him. In consequence of an assault made upon him, witness was laid up for four days. His Worship said the assault was a cowardly one, and fined defendant £5, and costs £1 18s 6d, in default one month’s imprisonment. ALLEGED NEGLECT.

An information was laid by C. E. McPhee, Inspector of Rabbits and Noxious Weeds, against J. Corboy, for failing to take steps to destroy rabbits on his property at Orakau.

, Defendant was repi'esented by Mr Luxford (Cox and Luxford), 'and pleaded not guilty. In his evidence the inspector said defendant had received notice on the 28th March. He went carefully over the property on April 3rd, but failed to see any improvement, nothing apparently having been done in the way, of poisoning or fumigating. About a fortnight prior to the 28th March the place was in a bad condition. A visit of inspection was paid on April 14th, when he saw two traps. Defendant said he wanted more time, as other work on the place was claiming his attention. In cross examination the witness said he would be'surprised to hear that the place had been fumigated about December. If proper methods had been used

the rabbits could have been kept under control. Three good poisons a year is a reasonable thing. John Kerr, Insp. ' ’ ' Tabbits and Noxious We..: , ...ited he

did not think reasonable steps had been taken to destroy rabbits. c The defence submitted by. counsel was that defendant had used reasonable steps to promote the destruction of rabbits. The defendant, J. Corboy, stated that he owned a farm of 200 acres at Orakau. The district had a bad reputation in regard to rabbits, and he had taken _ active and diligent steps.for some " years for the destruction of rabbits. The last notice he received from the Department was on the 30thMa:ch. In June heemployed a man to shoot rabbits. About twelve months he poisoned, in June he was occupied two days in poisoning, and also in October. In December five or six days were spent in thoroughly fumigating, and attending, to any holes that were opened up. Owing to being busy sowing grass seed he was not abje to devote the necessary time to poisoning, and employed a man to do the work. His boys were constantly catching rabbits. An adjournment was then made so that an inspection of the x property might be made. Neil Morrison, farmer, residing at Kio Kio, said he was employed by Corboy destroying rabbits, v and gave details of the methods of fumigating. J. and M. Morrow also gave , evidence as to the methods used - ''” by Corboy in endeavouring to’ - get rid of the rabbits. His Worship, after reviewing the evidence, said a conviction must follow. It was evident the rabbits were bad. There was more work done possibly than the Inspector had calculated, but the Act required that in the opinion of the Magistrate the work done must be effectivl. In his opinion it was a breach of the Act. It was short-sighted policy for anyone to say they could not afford to keep rabbits down, as.the damage done by them would far outweigh any expense that might be incurred in keeping them in check.' Defendant would require to take „ more active steps than he is at~ present taking, otherwise rabbits will become a menace.

A fine of £2 and costs 17s 6d was imposed, which would have . been more but for the faqt that , : the defendant had not properly j recognised that it was necessary , j for him to take more effective measures than he did. 1