I.—ll

33

534. Mr. Buchanan.] It would be as well if you stated what your position is. 535. Hon. the Chairman.] What is your position?—Sub-Inspector. 536. Who is the chief?— Mr. Douglass. lam Sub-Inspector, and have three counties to attend to—namely, Waihemo, Waikouaiti, and Maniototo—Palmerston South being my head-quarters. In all matters of this kind I consult my chief officer, and, of course, I should like him to have been here. 537. Mr. McKenzie.] Where is the chief officer? —At Dunedin. 538. Mr. Buchanan.} Might I put this question : Did Mr. Douglass visit the locality himself or did he simply concur in your recommendations from your own personal knowledge of the country ? —Action was taken upon my reports. Mr. Douglass has been on the property since this case was heard. He was never, to my knowledge, on the land before. 539. Therefore, the instructions you received from your chief were in consequence of statements made to him by yourself ? —Yes. 540. Mr. Lance.] Where does this land join Bell's ? —lt is only a little piece of 50 chains [plans produced]. It is the only place where it joins Bell's run. 541. Mr. McKenzie.} I think you are wrong : are you prepared to say this part [shown on plan] is not part of Bell's run ? —I do not think so. To me the occupier is the owner, and Bell is not occupying it. The occupier is the person 1 have to deal with. 542. How many acres has Mr. Bell?— 1 could not really say. He might have 80,000 acres altogether—leasehold and freehold. 543. Mr. Dodson.} But you do not trouble yourself as to who is the owner?—No ; I only look after the occupier. Mr. Bell may be the owner, but the ocrapier is the owner within the meaning of the Babbit Act. I produced the plans to show that Eoss's boundary, in all, with Bell's, was only 50 chains. Now, in regard to clause skthat5 k that the Sub-Inspector served George Eoss with a notice under section 8 of "The Eabbit Nuisance Act, 1882," but did not serve any notice on adjoining occupiers, 1 would ask how Eoss knew that. Mr. Bell had men on Duncan's boundary, and Mr. Duncan was working at keeping rabbits down also. I hand this letter from John Duncan, dated Dunback, sth February, 1889 : " To the Eabbit Inspector, Palmerston. —Sir, —The rabbits from my neighbours are destroying my crop wholesale, and they are not making any effort to destroy the rabbits. Unless you make them do it, I have no remedy. One of them told me he would not take any steps to destroy the rabbits, and there is about 12 chains all along his boundary of my crops useless through the rabbits from his ground eating it. Come and see yourself.—I am, &c." I say, therefore, that it was in consequence of this letter that I went on to the ground. I saw Duncan, and said to him, " You have three neighbours joined to your property—namely, Eoss, Lindsay, and Bell." I said, " What is Bell doing," and Duncan replied, "He is the best neighbour I have got; and he put two men on immediately I asked him. The other two would do nothing." 544. Mr. Dodson.] Well, you did something after that?— Yes. I received the letter on the 15th February, being in the vicinity of Naseby at the time it was written. On the 21st I met Duncan as I was coming down from the country, and he then complained to me. On the 25th 1 visited the land, and Duncan told me that he was perfectly satisfied with what Bell had done, as he had placed two men on directly he had asked him, and that he was the best neighbour he had got, and added, Eoss and Lindsay would do nothing. On the 26th February I sent the ordinary legal notices to Eoss and Lindsay. I tried to see Eoss, but was unable to do so, and therefore wrote to him. I saw Lindsay himself. 545. Have you any evidence? —Yes. 546. Hon. the Chairman.] You might say something about this 6th clause, in reference to Eoss putting on his sons to keep the rabbits down ?—My answer to that is that his sons were only " off and on," and this fact was admitted by his sons in Court. 547. Mr. Dodson.] In fact, you were not satisfied? —No. Putting on sons only means that they go out shooting rabbits after their day's work. At the end of March, I think it was, I wrote to Eoss on the subject, being unable to see him. I subsequently saw his son, and, in answer to me, he said no one was working at the rabbits near Duncan's. I replied that I should go on the land again on Tuesday next, and if there was no one working I should put a riian on myself, under section 11 of the Act. I saw Eoss when I went there on the 2nd April, and he said he had put a man on that morning. I told him I was glad of it, because I did not wish to see rows betwteen the neighbours. At this time the whole country was pretty bad, but I considered it would be unwise for me to put everybody on killing then, as I wished to get a simultaneous poisoning in June, and the feed being so plentiful then, it would be useless to start sooner. Of course, it was my duty to take notice when complaints were made. I simply asked Eoss to keep a man on till such time as this man's crops were saved. It would not have cost much. On the 19th April I saw Duncan, and he told me that neither Eoss nor Lindsay had men on. Well, I was surprised at this statement after what Eoss had told me. On the 22nd April I sent my agent, Mr. Field, up to see if this was true, because I could not believe it after what Eoss had told me. I told Field to report to me if any work had been done. He came back and said that there was no sign of anything having been done, and that there was nobody there at work, and I engaged two men to go on on the 24th at £1 per week. Notice was sent to Eoss and Lindsay on the 23rd that I had placed their properties under section 11 of the Act. 548. When did the men go?—On the 24th. One went on section 9, the other on section 5. 549. Hon. Mr. Miller.] Did both men go on Eoss's? —No; one on Eoss's and one on Lindsay's. . On the 6th May I instructed Field to go on. to the ground and see the men and inspect work, and also to see Eoss; and, if he was agreed to go on with the work himself, the men should be taken off. Boss did agree, and the men were taken off on the Bth. I sent on the 13th May for the payment of the money expended. No money was forthcoming. On the 18th I gave them another week, and still they did not pay. They were then summoned, and judgment was given for the plaintiff—£2 in each ease. There are one or two things in the petition I should like to refer to.