POLICE COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 738, 8 April 1881, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

MASTERTON, THURSDAY.

[Before H. 8. Wakdem, Esq., R.M.I Ingram v. Bannister,—Driving aoross a footpath. Fined Is and fa costs. ■ Same v. James Loader.—Drivingaoross a footpath. Fined Is and Va costs.

Same v. Raymond W, Marshall,tethering a horse on the footpath in Hall street. Fined 5a and 7b costs. "■

Same v. Edmund Chamberlain .-Riding across a footpath in Ohapel-st., on the 9th March, ,

In answer to defendant, prosecutor said he could not tell what colored horse he was riding. Defendant said that on the day in question ho was at home. Fined Is and costs. .'■■'■

Same v. John Raynor.—Driving a bull through the public streets, contrary to provisions of the borough by-laws, on the 19th ult. ■■■

Defendant said that ■he bought the animal at Messrs lorns & Co.s', auction sale, and that it was perfectly quiet. The Court did not consider the animal was a dangerous one, but it could only be driven legally between the hours of 10 p.m.'andßa.m. Case dismissed.

. Same v. T. L. Thompson.-Riding across a footpath in Ohapel-st. Fined 5s and costs.

Same v, H. Yates driving across a footpath in Victoria-st. Fined Is and costs. Samev. H. Ewington breach of borough by-laws. Fined Is and costs. 0. J. Hare v. Walter Morrison.— Charge of abusive language in the public streets on March 22nd. Mr Bunny for defendant.

C..J. Hare stated that on tho morninw of the 22nd lie met the defendant in tho company of Mr Gray, near Mr Gray's smith shop. Defendant said, " That's a a fine account you have sent to me," referring to a proof of debt which he had sent in. He added, " What have you done with that martingale of mine, you by thief."

• In answer to Mr Bunny, prosecutor said he was on the path leading to Mr Gray's property. He swore positively to defendant using the words attributed to him. Defendant had asked him about the martingale on a previous-occasion. Farquhar Gray deposed that lie heard defendant call prosecutor a thief and a rogue, or something to that effect. The entrance to the smithy was a public one, but it was on private property. _ Mr Bunny submitted that tho information must be dismissed, as there was no evidence to show the words were uttered within the hearing of any person passing along the public street. Case dismissed?

Rabbit Inspector v J. V. Smith. Breach of Rabbit Act.

' Mr Beard for Inspector; Mr Smith conducting his own case. The Insp'ecter gave evidence to the effect that efficient steps had not been taken, and that the rabbits-were not boin« kept down, . ' °

In answer to defendant the Inspector stated that 50 a day could' now be killed on the property; He had not been on the property since the 3rd February. Had seen fires in that direction as of burning off. The rabbits had decreased on other properties on the Opaki. Before last'poisoning season, they werovery numerous on the. Opaki. Hunting on tho adjoining property might have "sent some on to Mr Smith's land. It was not his place to make suggestions to anyone.

11l answer to Mr Beard.-Had nol been asked by Mr Smith to make su* gestions. °

David Heggie stated he lived on a portion of' Mr Smith's run. He gave evidenco as to what had come under his notica on Mr Smith's land. He could not say whether the rabbits had increased ernot. It was hard.to tell. There were plenty of rabbits there now. They had decreased on his own property. ' He had killed rabbits on Mr Smith's land when he had nothing else to do. Mr Smith had been burning off his land lately, He did not know what steps had been taken by Mr Smith to destroy tho rabbits since September last* He thought the number was about the same now as then. He saw a man with dogs on Mr Smith's property occasionally. • In answer to the Court,—Had seen men with dogs on Mr Smith's land, before the end of February. In answer to defendant—lt was an understanding between them that he could kill as often as he liked on defendant's land. He had not stated that he had sold sufficient shins to keep his family in stores, and that now there were no rabbits on tho land near him'. The Inspector did not call on him to his knowMevedhe had had a conversation with the Inspector on the subject, Inspector, recalled, stated that he had been on Mr Hoggie's land, which was much freer from rabbits than Mr Smith's. ■ Heggie's examination continued—Had netted rabbits on Mr Smith's property. It was a portion of the agreement between himself and defendant that the scrub and flax should be burnt off, and he had done it as.soon as he could. It was impossible to make the flaxand scrub in the swamp bum till recently. He had seen Mr Smith out frequently trying to burn off, but failing. Had lost three or four acres of his crop on his' boundary line through the rabbits, Mr.Smitli had agreed to pay half the cost of employing a man, who was engagod but did not como. The rabbits could not be kept down while the scrub existed.' He had not done as much, work on Mr Smith's land killing rabbits as he

had on his own. r ..V •', '■. W. Hall stated that he was ongaged by defendant on the 16th October as rabbitor, and had worked as such for six weeks, when ho was. engaged as a general hand about the place, Had not had very rauoh experience of rabbits; but had been on Mr Vallance's run before going to work for Mr Smith. He had furnished a daily report to Mr Smith as to the number

killed. [Defendant produced report, but it was. held to be inadmissable by. the Court, as it was not'in witness' writing. Defendant explained that it was taken

,down by himself from witness' notes; but the Court stated they would have to take the witness' .statements from memory as he had not his own notes.] As near as he could remember, he had killed from 100 to 160 a day, large and small, while he was at it. He had been occa-

sionally assisted by defendant's son, who was a good shot. He had been paid for between 2000 and 3000 skins, On one occasion Mr Smith's son and three gentlemen went out shooting; they shot more on Mr Heggie's land than on Mr Smith's. He thought shooting was not much good, as only .very quick shots could get them, the shooting only haring the effect of frightening thorn.

By the Oqurt-rHe had managed to kill so .many by digging them out and using ferrets, .; ; "

Examination' continued.; There were about 30 dogs bn4he property for hunting rabbits) but they had riot been- used much lately,' as sharing was found'to.be better. He had been engaged in burning off the Horub, but had found great

difficulty in making it burn; but now the fire had been over riiost of tlio property. Be thought clearing : the acrub the best means of destroying, the {rabbits, as-if their shelter we're taken airay they wouid perish in the-winter. The rabbits were not bo numerous at the beginning of February as they were at the end of October. Gross-examined by Mr Beard- Had been engaged as a rabbiter. Had been employed from October 18th to the end of November. Had been about the place since. Had only goneout rabbitting occa- ; sionally.M not ca toh 4,500 in the six weeks. Did not think anyone acted as rabbiter from the end of November. Had he dogs aver since he had been there, and' had caught rabbits with dogs. In the summer the.rabbits hid themselves during the day, and might not bo seen in numbers, but you could see them at night. Had not much to do with snaring In answer to the Court: He had seen Mrbmith bring in betweon'2o and 30 rabbits of an evening when snaring. The as few days of his work as rabbiter he had killed from 60 to 60.. The snarin, was commenced soon after he left off kill"

Ee-exammed: The rabbiter who was her 3 before left m December, and he was then employed aa a general hand. They diacontmuea using the dogs because they frightened the rabbits away from the snares. Killed less latterly because the rabbits were getting fewer. Knew where some of he snares wore laid, but had had nothing to do with them himself • Frank Smith deposed that he was a utor at defendant's, but was not a relation. Hera engaged in January, Had occupied his leisure time in hunting and snaring rabbits. They, had used thefdogs from the.lst to 20th January, when they eft off using them and snared steadily from 20th January to 18th March.'. They caught about 23 a day. These were only the rabbits he knew of. Others were killing._ Thought (he snaring much more efficient than dogs. In answer to'Mr Beard: They averaged 23 a day with the snares. They set an average of 200 snares a day.' Had caught | 6l with dogs one day, after hard work, but could not average the killing of the dogs He considered rabbits had been steadily and constantly reduced since he had been on the station, and considered the snaring ar the best. He formed his opinion of the decrease of the rabbits from what came under his own notice, ' Charles Henry Smith deposed that ast winter tho rabbits were poisoned till the weather became too dry, He went occasionally to kill the rabbits in October ast roth Hall and was of the opinion that the latter killed moro than he stated. About the middle of December they commenced snaring, and have continually kept up destroying them bv this method till the present time. They found that Jy using dogs they frightened rabbits from the snares. With dogs and spades hey only averaged about twelve and thirteen a day. Witness had obtained proper wire, and made a portion of the snares About 1200 snares had been made out of 61b of wire, and all used on the run. In February witness went shootiV with !Ti l??t ° m the 's<'°«nd.°They killed 60 to 60a day with four guns. Last year they killed over the same ground as many as 125 in a day. Between the 7th £„r m M e 7 nd witness killed with dogs and guns and a. little snaring about 25 or 30 rabbits A Witness killed only old rabbits, Ha dostroyedyoung ones, consequently Hall obtained a greater number. The rabbits were not breeding now, they bred about five times a year, they had bred very little since December. Only about a quarter of the rabbits killed on the last occas.on were destroyed oh defendant's land, he remainder were shot off Messrs s*f'!! £ , a f d s*¥*'* land ' Wit »«ss stated that to. ] ll3 knowledge the rabbits had been steadily decreasing, and within the last two or three months rapidly decreasing. . J In answer to Mr Beard said, it was not «n hu opinion taking efficient steps to drive rabbits off the ground, He considered snaring was more destructive than limiting rabbits with dogs and guns In answer to defendant he did not cons.dor that they could kill now as many abbita with dogs and Kuris as they destroyed in February, last. ' Defendant stated' that he was sum. nionedtor not taking efficient steps to des roy his raboils. and he absolutely dome:! no having doueso..He claimed that he evidence showed that he kept up cohImuouß.efforts to clear his ground His property was an exceedingly difficult one or dealing with rabbits. He'wrote on he Bth December last to the late Inspector expressing a wish to accompany him when he next inspected his property, in order to consult with him ns to any other steps which could be taken.. He intimated to the Inspector that aitoon ut possible hewould have his scrub burnt off to dearoy the cover which harbored.them The letter was brought before the Board, but nq reply was mado.to it. His object had dHn Wion that i would not harbor rabbits. He believed that during the coming winter the land would be entirely cleared kl./. P u 3, CT n aßt6prin K the "umber killed bv Mr Hall was due to the fact that they were a that time breeding very fast Mr Board said defendant appeared to lose- sight of the fact that the Ao't obliged him to take steps not to decrease the number of rabbits but to destroy them According to tho evidence of defendant's own witnossos Hall knocked off killing on the 7th of December, and till Ist Jan uary no efficient steps were taken. Efficient steps were such steps as would destroy them within a reasonable time and not steps calculated to extend over a n?Si „ P f iod ' If , onl ? 25 rabbits perday. h , db aughtwithg eramly shewed that efficient steps to destroy them had not been taken. Tho Court quoted the section under JS, tl,e was laid. It assumed that th,s section was specially intended to meet tho case omen who, after receiving notice, recklessly allowed the pest to remain unabated He did not understand Mo mean that a man should destroy all his rabbits within seven days. The Court alone had to decide what efficient steps wore. Efficient stops might moan effecive steps,-or steps calculated to be effective,-. Ih the present case he had to consider whether the stops taken were calculated to destroy.the rabbits.- Shortly after receiving the notice, defendant engaged* man or six weeks to kill, and the number he killed showed that the notice was required. As far as it could judge, at the end of the sir wseks the rabbits were almost as numerous as at the beginning. It cpuld not help feeling that it was a mistake to knock the man off when he was obtaining an average of fifty or sixty a day.. Defendant had shown every intention to carry nut .the object of the Aotbu the Court felt bound to dbcidethat he had made an error in judgment in knocking this man off, and- that therefore •he had not taken continuous efficient atepsi* Defendant would therefore be fined £1 . . Horobin v N. King.—Assault. Plaintiff withdrew the charge, as defendant ha'd expressed his regret for his conduct in the matter. Horace Smith .v.. Zohrab Newman & Go.r-Debt £2B 15s, . This <vas a claim for bookkeeping, and preparing balance sheet in the business carried on by MrH. Aulin, - at Mauriceville, whioh had since been taken over by Messis Zohrab Newman it' Co. The work wa3 perfotmed at the order of Mr Aulin, but the restate: having been taken possession ' of : Jj>yj

defendants', under bill of Bale, i plaintiff now sued, that firm for bis remuneration, Mr Collins Appeared for plaintiff. Mr ZohrabippearinQ for the - • •; ;. : The plaintiff deposed that he-, 'was engaged by Mr A'ulin to do certain work, and had charged him £1 per week for five weeks, prepared a balance sheetand done .other work to the amount of the claim.: :,■ E Aulin gave evidence to the eMf" that plaintiff had done the work jtatM but denied that he' had made.any arrangement with him. He.hid only promised to give him a few shillings as he wanted ~■ them. He had given Mr Smith £1 and £c £llos a week on a previous occasion when ss. Working' for him at similar,work. thought 10a a day was too much, for the work according' to the business;: but he intended to pay something for: the "work : done. ,! -

The defendant's ' representative submitted that the caso should be dismissed as there was nothing to show, why Zohrab Newman & Co., should pay.for work done ■ • for Mr Aulin, the latter acting for himself, uncontrolled by them.. • . ; t Judgment was given, for defendants; 'v v with costs of court £llss, and expenseߣ3l7s. ' ,v :-.- ; -.-;-. ,..;■.-■■'■ : .'■', ''"7s Mr J. Nathan v. James Oheok.%Debt'- ''X 10s, ■, Defendant had paid 2s On account. Judgment given for plaintifffor balance, - COStS 7s. ■ " ''. •'• -f-X-':; ■■:■_

R. Wilsonev...James Stoodley.— and costs £l4s. Judgment- for plaintiff. '' Same v. John MoKenzie.—Rates L 3 Bs. No appearance o{ defendant; .Judgment for amount and costs, .'■ . R. Wilsone v R. W, Marshall.-Rates £4 18s, 6d. ■' No appearance. Judgment for amount and costs, '■:'<

A. Fallopn v.Wereta;Hamuera,—Judgment summons. Ordered to pay jvithin two months or go to prison. " ■: .'

Bannister v TihiPaora.—Breach of the Rabbit Act. Mr Beard for plaintiff. Mr J. J. Freeth acted as, interpreter. This was the first native rabbit case heard at Masterton.. .•'■..'■' Defendant stated that he had • killed the rabbits, and had never refused to kill them, He, however, admitted neglecting to kill them silice December. The case n\ withdrawn, as it was the first case againit the natives, and would be sufficient tolbring the matter home to them. " | ■■' Defendant statedthat Mr Holmes' property supplied'the. rabbits to his and all the properties around. H. 0. Thompson vR. Field.—£2o damages for entering upon premises and breaking intp a cottage, and retaining possession ofjthe same. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. The facts, ai stated by Mr Bunny, were that the plaintiff rented the house and premises referred to from defendant under a lease, but tlie latter, apparently wishing to resume possession; broke into the house early in March, and still retained possession.

Mr Beard, for defendant, denied that the premises were let to plaintiff, or that he had ever been in possession of them. The plaintiff deposed that he was resident at Taratahi; that he had occupied section 176 on that block, which he had leased from Mr & Feild. [The lease, signed by 1.0.. Thompson and by Feild's mark, was here handed in, at the request of Mr Beard.] 'He had had possession of the property since July last year, but did not live on'it. He had also bought eight sheep, for vhich he had given a promissory noto. He had since paid the amount. Had paid the rent—[leceipts produced, signed by field's mark.] .(,' Mrßearj held that these document, signed by Field's mark could not be".M<j pitted, as (he mark was not attested. W intended to bring evidence to prove tfili defendant did not make his mark to the '*- agreements Examination continued. . ; He still had possession of the land; his sheep wore running on it. • He had paid the rates, He saw Field sign the deed by makiug, his mark, There were 'only defendant and his wife and plaintiff present. The latter had asked him if he had to leave the place he was in i through a mortgagee closing on him, would he give him leave to occupy the cottage, Witness had said he would if the worst came to the worst perhaps let him have it._ He saw defendant twice after but he said nothing further about it. On the first Wednesday in Maroh ha found that the locks had been removed from the cottage door. He put fresh locks on the door. He went down on Friday after to shear some sheep, and found defendant in the house. ■ The defendant said to him, "Who the h-1 gave you possession of this place, and who told you to put locks on my door." Jeffs Jeffsson's son was with plaintiff, Jeffsson further helped him to pufr tho' looks on. Defendant said " Who wrote the agreement ?" Witness said, '* I did." Defendant 1 then said, " Who signed the agreement?" Witness said, "You and I did,,' Defendant said, " You are a b —ry liar, and if you come in here I'll knock you head ,over heels," Defendant also wanted to know where the agreement was, Defendant then said, " I am the man for you; I'd kill you in three minutes." Had several things in the house-some blankets and nails, and a volume of London Journal, which had since been torn up and pasted on tjie walls, On the 4th (March his blankets were thrown out and .he was told to take them away. His stock were still running on that land. There were about lOO.laree sheep and 60 lambs, Cross examined . I wrote the agreement out and left a copy of it with him,' as Field would not sign it then because he wanted more money than. I would Rive. I read the agreement at the request of Field, as he could not read, J) ield s father-in-law and Mrs Field were present.. The agreement was signed after being read over a second time on the secoud Monday after the first interview. Nothing was said about the cottage being left out of tho lease. I had no other agreement with defendant. I only lived m the cottage when looking after the wild dogs, There was only a peg to fasten the door with, which could be removed from the outside. . Defendant was once in the house about three neeks before he took ■ possession, but he might have been many times in the cottage. Surveyors have occupied the place at my consent.' I served a notice on Field after he took possession, who subsequently served a notice on me. There were only-defend- i ant, plaintiff and defendant's wife present when signing the deed. -^fl Mr Beard resumed his seat.after'sub- V mitting the plaintiff to a very severe J cross-examination, which was met iu a very prompt and: clear ' manner by the I witness, '■■■■■' "* " / Defendant adraitted'taking the looks off and using the language complained off, Mr Beard stated lie'would prove that defendant would not sign the deed without leaving out the cottage and garden j and that the mark on the agreement wag not made by defendant. ■ ' Biohard Field deposed that ho wag the, defendant in this case. The agreement he he came to with the plaintiff was to the effect that plaintiff was to have the place for £5 a year till such time as he (defendant) wanted it agam. The house and garden were not to be included, The agreement ,was not in writing. This- agreement was made the same' evening as the writteh.one was read over. .He did not'

sign the agreement, as he would hot &g'ree ; to only .brought tohim'once.He''could notawear the one produced jwas the same.: that was read over to him.. .'He'never put his.mark to any agreement, nor authoii ed; plaintiff to sign his name. The sheep

' vera bought long before the agreement wasmade. Cross-examined by Mr Bunny. Had received rent and signed receipts with tiis mark, Did not know when his rent come • due. He left it all to Mr Thompson, and to his honesty. His wife was his "f clerk. Did not enquire .when the rent ;■ became due.. Be had not put the date when he took possession, Did not -remember anything about lopping the trees; Plaintiff read the agreement to him. He bould not read or write, and did not know what was on tho paper handed.to him. ; .Did not let the house to plaintiff as he wanted Bewasawarethatplaintiff wasoccupying the place. He foundarug and some other N things, in the house. Under his agreement lie could turn plaintiff off when he wanted to. Ho would turn him off when ho was ready. The witness contradicted all plaintiff's evidence oxcept tho payment of the rents, and payment for sheep. _ Mrs Field, wife of defendant, deposed it was agreed that plaintiff was to have the land outside the garden till Mr Field wanted it. No agreement was signed in presence. " Plaintiff' come to her fathor's place and read an agreement, but "Field would not agree to the terms and no agreement was signed, Tho agreement was not brought again, nor did she know that it was signed. Oroaa-exnmined—Did not know her her husband had been up to see Thompson about the land. Could not read very well, Had heard the agreement read, but had not taken much notidti of it, Thompson put it in his pocket after reading it, and said there was no harm done. [Considerable time was taken to get the witness to say whether she wrote a certain thing or not, or could recognise her own signature. Finallyshe sworeshe did not write the signature shewn her.] She did not remember her" husband signing any paper when tho sheep wero sold. Knew nothing of the terms of agreement, except that the cottage and garden were not in it, and that Field was to have tho land back when he wanted it, Tho agreement was not on paper at all. Did not attend to her husband's business, Did not know when the rent camo due. Could not write a letter; she sometimes signed Field's name. James Ridgway, called, deposed that he was father-in-law to defendant, and was Mr Field's step-father. He remembered Thompson coming to his house and reading to them at Field's request an agree- • ment about taking the land, but Field would not agree, ;ib £5 was in the agreement, and he wanted £B. No agreement whatever was signed or made. He could not read the agreement, No copy of the agreement was left at his place. Did not know whether they finally agreed to lease the premises or not- If plaintiff had agreed to £B, Field would have let him have the houso and all. Mrs Field told plaintiff that he could have the 60 acres at £5 a year. , In answer to the Court—Mr Field, recalled, stated that she was quite sure that Mr Thompson did not come to their house, and bring the agreement, and her husband put his mark to it. Defendant, recalled, stated that he remembered going up with Geange, but did not have any talk with plaintiff re the agreement, His Worship pointed out that there was either perjury or forgery fn this case. He thought the beat course would bo to let the matter stand over, and issue a summons for the appearance of Geange (who was sttited by plaintiff to have been < Dresent when the final arrangement was tmeto.) The case, from the conflicting idence, was a very serious one, and the _,jeation now at issue was more important . (tjian possession of a slab whare. The case would statid adjourned till that day fortnight. Mr Bunny stated the plaintiff fully recognised this, and was anxious for the production of Geange, whoie address he had taken some trouble to discover. Masterton Rabbit Trust v John Morrison.—Rates £1 3s 4d. Adjourned to next sitting. . Catherine Gunthor v Jacob Gunther.—' Debt £7. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Judgment for amount and costs. Rabbit Trust v Jacob Baumber.— Breach of Rabbit Act. Mr Beard, for Trustees, not Beeing his way to proceeding with the case in the absence of an important witness, the case was struck out. Two other cases against Herbert Jones and F, W.'Hadfield wore adjourned to next Court day.