MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXII, Issue 9630, 19 March 1910, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MASTERTON—FRIDAY. (Before Mr 0. C. Graham, S.M.)

FAILING TO DESTROY RABBITS.

Joe Paku was charged with having failed to take proper steps to destroy the rabbits cm his property.

Mr O. A. Pownall appeared for accused and pleaded not guilty.

Thomas Charles Webb, Rabbit Inspector, gave evideuce as to having inspected the property on December 15th aud again in January and ou February ( .)th. The rabbits ware very numerous on those dates. Ou February U3th, in compauy with Mr Raukin, he made another inspection aud found

that nothing nad Lean done in the way of poisoning.

By Mr Pownall: Witness had not told" Paku that unless he would sigu an order for the Department's officials to lay the poisou he would not be given any. He knew that Paku liad au interest in the property iv question.

James Kaukiu gave corroborative evidence.

Mr Powuall submitted that Paku, not being the owner uf the property, was not liable. He would prove, however, that his clieut had taken steps to poisou the rabbits. Joe Paku said lie was looking after some sheep for his aunt ou the property in question. He had no interest whatever iv tl - e land at present. From March to November, J 90;), he I)ad a rabbiter aud a pack of dogs working cousfcantly ou the place, tie went to tho iuspector to get poison about; January 11th. iv compauy with one or two othe , ; Natives. Defendant had been taken up to informant/s office and asked to allow the officers of the Department to lay the poisou. Witness asked who was going to pay for it, to which inforraaufc, it was alleged, replied that he supposed witness would. About a fortnight afterwards witness had called again at Mr Webb's office, aud had been refused the poisou. A few weeks after, witness came iv again and got the poison. This was two or three clays before lie-was summoned. He took steps to lay it as soou a?' lie received it.

Mr Webb: If you have nothing to do with the property, why did you order all this poison?

Deiendaut: I was authorised by my relatives.

By Mr Wobb: He had beeu told to carry out the poisoning, ami took the responsibility of the property. Ho had received (iOlbs of poisou altogether, and started poisoning on February 2nd. There were several owners of the stock for whom wituess acted.

Tulio Waiuohu, a neighbour of Palm's, said they started using the poisou ou February 2nd and continued laying it for three days, wheu they stopped owing to au accident by which a Maori met .his death.

By Mr Webb: They got their poisou free of charge Iroin the Department, and had never beeu refused auy. The rabbits were still very numerous ou the property in question.

By Mr Pownall: He could not say whether his neighbours were poisoning or not. Palm had no mterest in the laud.

Mr Pownali said the Act provided that the notices should bo served in such a manner as to produce simultaneous action ou the part of the owners of properties. He asked his Worship to reserve his decision till the next case was heard, to which the Jatter agreed.

A char 29 of the same nature was preferred against Piripi Wauka, for wl:om Mr La very appeared.

Thomas Oharlos Webb gave evidence as to having inspected defendant's property, comprising 1000 acres, in the mouths of December, January aud February aud haviug found the rabbits very numerous.

James RaiiKiu, Rabbit Inspector, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, seating time be bad seen poison in Joe Waaka's whare unopened. Sydney Charles Iveus, Rabbit Inspector lor the South Wairarapa, said ho saw a patch where poison bad been laid at the lower end of the native property, but none near the boundary. This year bad been an exceptionally bad one for rabbits, and it was absolutely essential, that efforts should be made to keep them down. Good work had been done on the South Wairarapa boundary. It was coutended by Mr Lavery that bis client bad taken reasonable steps to lay the poison.

Piripi Waaka said be had used the poison that bad been sent to him. On one occasion rain had set in and it had been necessary to do the work over again. He had sent; for more poison, but did not receive any aud could do no more.

Joe Faku said that he had seen four of the defendant's meu laying poison at different times.

His Worship said that, from the evidence given for the defense it was evident that some effort iiad been made to lay poison, but the question was whether defendants bad done sufficient. He did not think they had, but would ouly impose a light penalty. Defendant was lined 20s and costs, and a similar line was imposed in regard to the previous case. L/iko charges were made against James Joseph Kennedy aud James John Rice, a line of 20s and costs being imposed iv each case. ORDERING LIQUOR. John Albert Leahy was charged with having given an order on account of another person for liquor iuteuded to be brought into the No-License area of Masterton without having supplied a statement in writing of the name and address of the latter. Defendant was not represented by counsel, aud entered a plea of not guilty. Frederick Sievevs, barman at the Club Hotel, Cartertou, seated that defendant had purchased seven gallons of beer from him, aud had signed and paid for it. Sergeant Miller stated that at (5 p.m. on February 28th defeudaut had come to the police station, and as a result of information given wituess paid a visit to Mrs Noilseii's boardiughouse, where accused was staying. Tsvo kegs of beer were found on the premises, one of which defendant admitted having procured. Mrs Neilseu. on being qnestionec l , admitted having givou defendant the mouey with which to purchase the liqnor. John Alfred Leahy stated he had ordered the liqnor iv ins owu name, the purchase mouey having been given him by Mrs Neilseu.

His 'Worship stated that tho law in the matter was very plain, aud defeudant should have known better. He would be lined £5 and costs. Jeaunio Leahy was similarly charged and also pleaded not guilty. Willie Burridge, brewer, stated that Mrs Leahy aud Mrs Neilseu had (iriveu to Uarterton together aud purchased soma beer. The liquor was signed and paid for by Mrs Leahy and witness was nuder the impression that it was for her.

Sei'gt. Miller stated the reason given by Mrs Leahy for signing the order for the liquor was that Mrs Neilsen could not write.

Joaunie Leahy said that on the day in questiou she and Mrs Neilseu went to Carterfcon for a drive. She knew nothing about the beer except that Mrs Neilsen had given her the money to pay for it and that she

had been asked to sign a book. His Worship abated l;hat the case presented an elemout of doubt. Both Mrs Neilsen aud Mrs Laahy were in the trap at; the time that the liquor was bought aud it was possible that the former might have made use of the latter without her knowledge. On the other hand it was also possible that Mrs Leahy hai signed the order knowing that Mr 3 Neilseu could not write. He would give defendant the benefit of the doubt aud dismiss the case, but would advisa har to be more careful iv tha fubura. A CHARGE OF KEEPING LIQUOR FOR SALE. Kate Neilseu was charged with keeping liquor for sale within the NoLicense area of Masfcerfcou between January 24th and March 9th.

Mr C. A. Powuall appeared for accused and entered a plea of uot; guilty.

Sergeant- Miller stated that in saarching the house they found a number of empty-whisky cases iv a dummy cellar and also the two kegs of bßer alluded to in the former cases.

By Mr Pownall: He would ba sur-. prised to learn that the collar had been there for many years, as the boards had been newly sawn at the ends aud the hiugas were quite bright. All he found ou the premises was two kegs of beer and a bottle of whisky. A man named McKiuuon got five gallons of beer ou February 14th aud five on February 18th. He had no evideuce of actual sale by Mrs Neilseu.

Jeaunie Leahy, boarder at Mrs Neilsen's, said she got liquor at the house about three times in her own name. There was a good deal of driuking going ou there aud sometimes people were the worse for drink. She had sesu whisky used at the house.

By Mr Powuall : The boarders in the house were iv the habit of ordering liquor for their own use.

Johu Alfred Leahy said he was staying at Mrs Neilseu's boardinghouse. There was a certaiu amouut of drinking going on in the house. He had never got auy drink for Mrs Neilsen except the kee , alluded to iv the former case. Ho had seen psoplff the worse for drink there.

Sergeaut Miller held that Mrs Neilseu should show cause why she allowed the liquor in the house.

Mr Powuall submitted that there was no case to auswer, as a prima facie case had not been made out agaiust accused. Was it likely, if this liquor had baeu bought for sale, that the kegs would have beau found full a considerable time afterwards? All the liquor Mrs Neilsen had obtained since her previous conviction was one case of whisky aud two dozen of beer iv Jauuarv, four dozen of beer in February aud three dozen of bser in March.

Kate Neilsen, defendant iv the case, said she had never sold any of the beer t'iat had been brought to her house, She had giveu Mrs Lsahy the money ou one occasion to get a five gallon keg of beer, but neither of the kegs produced in Court was .the oue purchased at the time. Witness asked Mrs Leahy to get the liquor iv her name because she (Mrs Neilsen) could not write. There had never boeu auy attempt at concealment.

By Sergeaut Miller: She aud her husbaud had consumed the beer in the cask procured by Mrs Leahy.

Alexander MeKinuon, drover, said that ou February 14th and lSth two five gallou kegs of beer were delivered at Mrs Neilsen 's boardiughouse for his use Ho cousumed the oue lot, but the other arrived while he was away and wheu ho returned he found the police searching the house.

His Worship statsd that it would not hd diiiimir. to arrive at a decision iv the case. Evidently a lot of hard drinking had beeu carried on, but the amount cousumel did not appear to be excessive. The only circumstance which raised a doubt in his mind was the fact of Mrs Neilsen getting the beer under another name. This, however, was hardly strong euougli to justify a conviction and the case would be dismissed, the besr to be returned,