THE RABBIT PEST.

Waipa Post, Volume XII, Issue 944, 20 May 1920, Page 5

THE RABBIT PEST.

TWO OTOROHANGA CASES.

FINES OF £lO AND £ls.

COMMENT BY THE BENCH.

The rabbit nuisance and the powers of the inspectors under the Rabbit Act have been burning questions in this district for some time, and the fact that two settlers of Otorohanga (who had been convicted before of not having poisoned their lands properly) were to appear and answer charges under the Rabbit Act, at the sitting of the Magistrate’s Court here last Monday, attracted an interested audience.

Mr E. W. Burton was the presiding magistrate.

The first case was that against Mrs W. K. Cardeon, who . was charged with failing to clear her land of rabbits to the satisfaction o fthe inspector. Mr Seilwyn Mays prosecuted, on behalf of the Agricultural Department, whilst Mr Champneys defended.

In opening his case, Mr Mays said there was mor e than usual importance attached to the prosecution owing to the fact to misconception as to the powers conferred upon inspectors by the amending Act of 1918. It would be seen that many of the farms in the Otorohanga district were quite as badly infested as any in Central Otago. It was contended by the Department that if only the inspectors were listened to the pest could be eradicated within a few years. A great deal of fuss had been caused owing to the fact that the plans of speculators had been interfered with, but it was necessary that land held by speculators should not be allowed to remain so as to be the means of infesting other properties. Be (counsel) was not there to secure a conviction at any cost, but he had to help to make the path clear. The defendant had the position explained to him the day following the previous conviction, but nevertheless, had done nothing in the way of satisfactory poisoning since. An inspector could not prosecute without the written permission of his superior officer, who took every care to ascertain the necessity of a prosecution before granting his permission. As to the powers conferred upon inspectors under the Rabbit Amending Act. Mr Mays pointed out that the powers appertaining to inspectors under the Stock Act were quite as full, but as they did not interfere with the speculator there had been nothing said. The same remarks might be made in connection with the Noxious Weeds Act, the Slaughtering Act, and the Public Health Act. In every case the evidence of inspectors was relied upon. Under the Rabbit Act of 1908 it was sufficient for neighbours to see that the necessary poisoning had been done, and so the Act became “ dead,” but since the amendment such had not been the case. There was no doubt a tendency to commercialize rabbits owing to the high price being given for skins, and so it had become a custom to trap when there was a plenitude of full-sized rabbits, ana then to wait till the smaller ones had grown to mature size. The present case was, he considered, a bad one, as despite a conviction and subsequent inspections, the law had been flouted.

The Evidence.

Victor A. Huddleston, inspector, stationed at Te Kuiti, was the first witness called, and to Mr Mays said the defendant had been fined £5 in November last, and' next day he had seen Mr Cardon and told him to buy poison and fumigate for the purpose of destroying the young rabbits. On November >l4 and March 23 he had made other inspections and found no apparent attempt had been made to poison. He wrote to Mrs Cardon on March 27 warning her that he would have to ask permission to prosecute unless she had satisfactory work done. He gave her seven days’ notice to commence operations. On April Ist the conditions on the property were no better though poison appeared to have been laid.

Cross-examined by Mr Champneys witness said he knew that Smith and Parkes had not put down the poison they said they had. He was there on the 23rd March and would say there was not a sign of poison. There were about 150 acres involved. Did not know that 2 tins of poison had been supplied on the Bth March. He had not seen a report on this as it does not come to his office. The amount of poison calculated for an acre was lib. He was not accustomed to agree to Jib to an acre, though an expert poisoner might make Jib do, but it was not a firm or good rate. The amount of poison required depended on how it was laid or in ether words whether it was laid for the purpose of killing rabbits or to make a record in the use of the poison, and thus comply with the Act. If- in this instance two tins were used, they could not have been used judiciously. The way the settlers used the noison was to lay it holus bolus in a ‘burrow. The poisoners knew how to lay'the stuff, but had not done it properly on Mrs Cardon’s place. He had visited Mrs Cardon’s on 28th February, and again on the Ist April. He saw indications of trapping but no signs of new work j for reducing the pest. There was no work being done when he was there nor signs of any having been done lately. He knew that the fine of £s* had been remitted Mrs Cardon as the poison ordered was not delivered. In reply to Mr Mays witness said that if a sufficient supply of poison had been received and used there must have been a considerable reduction of rabbits. He had not made a report on the matter, and did not know the record. In writing to Mrs Cardon he had not intended to imply that no fair attempt had been made to combat the pest. In his opinion tlie trapping system carried out was inclined to encourage rabbit farming. His .Worship here remarked that according to Mr Justice Herdman the decision of the inspector was definite.

Tc Awamutu Man’s Evidence.

Arthur J. Blackburn, inspector of rabbits stationed at Te Awamutu, was the next witness, and in reply to Mr Sehvyn Mays said he bad visited Mrs Cardon’s in company with Mr Huddleston, but saw that no special attempts had been made to destroy the rabbits. Had made an estimate of the number of rabbits there, and as an inspector he assumed that no satisfactory work had been done and no attempt to comply with the law. In reply to Mr Champneys—The only signs of work in the direction ol poisoning was a deep furrow round the property, and drew the conclusion that this was only an attempt to delude the inspector, and that no laying of poison had been done. The drawing of the furrow was an ordinarymethod used in connection with either poisoning or trapping, but did not necessarily mean that there had been an attempt made to poison. He referred to his visit on the 10th March.

Re-examined by Mr Mays—lf poison had been laid on the 15th March he could not realize that it had been laid judiciously. Thomas Parker, another rabbit inspector, was called, and described what he saw when he visited Mrs Cardon’s property on 15th March in company with Mr Huddleston. The place was very rabbity, and there was nobody on the place, nor was there any stock. There was nothing to prevent a proper laying of poison. By Mr Champneys—He could not imagine any poison having been laid between the 10th and 15th March. Mr H. Munro, Principal District Inspector, said he had visited Mrs Cardon’s property with Mr Huddleston in March. He had had experience in South Canterbury and Otago. Compared with Otago Mrs Cardon’s property was very rabbity. Had seen a plough furrow and went well over the property, and was quite convinced that no satisfactory effort had been made to poison. Had seen the property again on 15th April, and the same conditions prevailed as on the former occasion. There appeared to have been very little done in the district to control the rabbit pest by use of poison. There was nothing peculiar about Mrs Cardon’s property to prevent successful poisoning. By Mr Champneys—There was no signs of poison visible on the 23rd March, and only the furrow existed. There were tno spits to be seen. A good job could not have been made by Smith and Parkes, and if they did the work they said, they could not have done it properly. Thought lib of poisoned pollard to the acre necessary, but of course this depended on the conditions prevailing. Re - examined —He did not think 561 b of pollard could have been laid two days previous to his visit. Even if it had been well laid it should have been followed up by fumigation and digging up of burrows. If this had been done, the property might have been cleared by April. This closed the case for the prosecution.

, The Defence.

Mr Champney stated the ease for the defence, and said he did not think it fair for the prosecution to have made reference 10 the former condition as, though jt might have been justified, the fine had been because no poison had been received when ordered by defendant. He mentioned this because undue stress had been laid on the previous conviction. His Worsnip pcnmed out that the present case was outside the previous conviction, and was as to whether anything had been done by Mrs Cardon before 10th November and 9th April to poison the rabbits. Mr Champney, continuing, said the property had not been worked by the Cardons and they had disposed of it, their ownership ceasing as from 16th April. In the meantime certain consignments of pollard had been received to an amount equalling 1121bs, or an average of lib to the acre — whereas he had been advised (hat Jib to the acre was sufficient. This indicated that Mr Cardon had been honestly prepared to do liis best to carry out the provisions of the Act. Mr Cardon’s letter, in which be had said that Smith and Parkes had poisoned for him, must be received as an honest communication. The expert evidence of the inspectors was to the effect that no poisoning had been done, whilst Smith and Parkes declared that they had done the work. Perhaps the rain had interfered with the expected results of the poisoning, but was prepared to show that Mr Cardon had had the work done.

Conviction Against Wife.

Mr H. M. Cardon was called, and, in reply to counsel, stated that his wife was the owner of the land in question. There had been a conviction against her in November last, and she had been fined £5. He had subsequently made representations to the Premier, and the fine was remitted. This was because the poison ordered had not reached him, and he had only received it (1121bs) on 16th November. Witness took the poison out to Mr Parkes, and they poisoned together, Parkes carrying the pollard in a nosebag and witness using the spade. They went all over the property and laid the poison. They also dug underneath the burrows. Had not heard then that the inspector had been out on the 14th (two days previously). He had received an official notice to poison dated 13th February, and a letter informing him that there was to be general poisoning on 23rd February. Had then written to Mr Huddlestone saying that he would not he able to attend to the matter for a week or so as he was ill with influenza and in bed. Had ordered a further lot of poison on sth March, and got it on the 13th. Had told Mr Huddleston of the non-arrival of the former lot of poison, hut did not say it. was because lie had not paid for it. He had forwarded the cheque, but did not receive the consignment until a lapse of two months. Could not say what time elapsed between the sending of tile cheque and his inquiry of the Department as to why the poison had not been sent. He and Parkes had used some 601bs or 70ihs, find they did it by “ splitting,” and he thought lie had complied with the law. Had allowed trappers to go on the property in December. He knew the

place was pretty rabbity, but poison could not be fairly expected to at once obliterate the pest. Since then rabbiters had been off and on. Neither poison nor trapping had cleared the place, and to reduce it to clean country meant more time. Had not seen the poisoning done in January, but honestly believed it had been done. He did not suggest that the inspectors had not told the truth in regard to the place being rabbity. The whole of the King Country was rabbity, and the pest appeared to do best in the paddocks and fields rather than in the fern. His land was all fern, and he did not know what the animals lived on —unless it was love. He thought his place was not rabbity when compared with Qthers. “Only One Babbit.”

By Mr Mays: On the day that the prospective buyers went over the place ohly one rabbit was to be seen, whilst over the road, on Messrs Philpips’ and Farmer’s places, there were hundreds and hundreds observed. He was present when the prospective buyer and his valuer inspected and agreed to buy the place. His Worship referred to the evidence of Smith and Parkes, the men who had to do the poisoning. He thought it unfortunate that the defendant had not ensured their attendance to give evidence. Mr Champneys agreed that it was unfortunate.

In reply to Mr Mays, witness said the sale of the property had been a satisfactory transaction. His Worship reviewed the evidence, and said he could not take into consideration the state of the property at the time of the former prosecution as the fine had been remitted, and the case was to be as a dead letter. In the present case they had the evidence of no less than four inspectors who had testified to the place being infested with rabbits on the several dates referred to and also there bad been no signs of either trapping or poisoning. Mr Blackburn had stated that when he visited the place the rabbits were too numerous to count, and thought there had been no attempt to comply with the law. Then there was the evidence of Inspectors Parker and Munro as to the place being very rabbity. Against this there was the evidence of Mr Cardon, who gave particulars of poisoning having been done and who had stated that on the ocasion of his visit, with a prospective buyer, 'there had been only one rabbit seen. He was afraid Mr Cardon had been carried away by his feelings, and he was to be commiserated with. He lived in Parnell and had the worry of this property on his mind, and had had to trust to others to carry out the work of poisoning. According to Mr Justice Herdman the evidence of the inspectors was pre-dominant, but seenig that certain witnesses had not been called for the defence, he had to judge on what had been adduced. Whether the evidence of the inspectors was to be considered paramount or not, it was patent to him that the property in question was in a very bad state as far as rabbits were concerned. No doubt the shirking of obligations in regard to rabbits by owners of properties was a growing evil which had to be stopped. There had been large fines—up to £2oo—imposed, but the minimum was £lO. He was inclined to be lenient in these matters and so would in this case impose a fine of £lO Is. The odd shilling was so that defendant could have the right to appeal. Costs according to scale -v/ere also allowed.

THE CASE AGAINST C. W. SWAINSON.

C. W. Swainson, of Maihiihi, who was defended by Mr Mossman, was similarly charged.

Mr Mays, opening the case, said the defendant had been prosecuted in February and fined. Numerous inspections had since been made of his property at Maihiihi, and it had been found that though trapping had been done there had been no poisoning. The defendant, being called, stated, in reply to Mr Mays that he was of opinion that trapping was a greater success than poisoning. He had written to the inspector (Mr Munro), and he and Mr Huddleston had called, but though told by his wife where to find him they had not taken the trouble to see him personally. He did not know of one of the trappers on his place having said he was waiting for the rabbits to grow. Had he heard of it he would certainly have turned him off the place. He had started poisoning in February, but finding it ineffective had employed trappers, who were paid with skins they obtained. He had been one of the deputation that 'waited on the Minister for Agriculture at Otorohanga asking for assistance to settlers to purchase wire netting. He was ready to work in co-operation with the inspectors in eradicating the rabbits but the fact that his neighbours had done nothing ma&e it difficult for him to fight the pest. As a matter of fact he would be glad to know what scheme of destruction was most approved by the inspectors. Mr Mays here stated that it was erroneous to say that nothing had been done on the adjoining properties. His Worship thought that unless it was shown by the evidence that nothing was being done on the adjoining properties against the rabbits the Court had to assume that there was.

A Trapper’s Evidence.

Mr F. Briscoe trapper was called for the defence and deposed to having worked on Swainson’s property since the 16th February, and had been very busy trapping. They had done a lot of fumigating, and had tried to poison, but had only got one rabbit, so had decided to continue trapping. Mr Swainson had worked with them and attended to the matter very diligently. Witness knew the adjoining country and considered it a menace to defendant. The fern there was so dense that no one could see the rabbits which came by hundreds on to Swainson’s at night time. He had trapped as many as 250 in a night, but could not state an average. 1-Ie and liis partner had trapped as many as 300 of a night on Martin’s property, and the poisoning there had not been successful. He thought Mr Briscoe’s property adjoining could he j burnt with a detrimental effect to the rabbits. He personally was not particular whether the rabbits were I cleared out. or not.

Mr Mossman, addressing the bench on behalf of Mr Swainson said his client was up against a hurdle as the adjoining properties were a refuge for countless rabbits during the day, which invaded Swainson’s of a night. His Worship said he had to assume that the provisions of the Act had not been carried out as far as the official notices for simultaneous destruction of rabbits were concerned." Mr Mays said that in his opinion Mr Swainson had been misled by himself rather than by the inspectors. “Done His Best.”

Mr Mossman addressing the bench, said he thought his client had done his best to clean his property. He was a farmer ,and realised it was to his own interests to get rid of the pests. Mr Swainson had got his poison from the Maihiihi (local) committee.

Mr Swainson, recalled, said, in reply to questions that he had got liis poison from the Maihiihi Rabbit Association and his first purchase was in February, 1919, when he obtained 41bs of stock phosphorus. He had also got 31bs in February of this year. He had 600 acres on which to poison. The cost of the stick phosphorus perhaps would come to £1 15s or £2. This amount of stick phosphorus would provide at least 6001bs of poisoned pollard. He had obtained his fumigating material from Te Awamutu and Otorohanga. His Worship said it was patent to him that both the defendant and the inspectors were mutually agreed as to the presence of rabbits. The question was, had the defendant taken the quickest and surest way of destroying the rabbits, and whether the inspector was satisfied that defendant had done his best in this direction? Defendant had said that, finding the poisoning unsuccessful, he had put on a trapper, who had cost him nothing, and who lived by the skins secured. It was to be asked whether defendant had done his best to get rid of the rabbits, as quickly as possible. Would the trapper have tried to get rid of the rabbits as a whole notwithstanding the differential prices reigning for the skins. One could hardly say that Mr Swainson had taken the quickest way to get rid of the rabbits. The defendant asserted that it was not owing to want of effort on his part but the existence of rabbits was owing to his neighbours land harbouring same. This was not satisfactory ,and in view of the former fine of £lO being evidently not sufficient deterrent he would impose one of £ls, with costs.