WANDERING SHEEP.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20108, 11 December 1930, Page 9

WANDERING SHEEP.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. | Afc the Eangiora Police Court yesterday before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., on the information of J. Quinnoy, foreman, the Ashley, River '<£rusb claimed from Thomas Miles, farmer, Fernsido, a penalty for alleged, damage to the work of the Trust, through sheep belonging to defendant 'wandering and damaging the young willows planted on groynes. Mr M. J. Gresson appeared for defendant, and pleaded not gu'lty. | Mr F. Johnston, on behalf of the Ashley River Trust, in outlining tho : case, quoted Section 13 of the Ashley ltiver Improvement Act, 1925, to show that defendant was liable to a very heavy penalty. Tho defendant had property separated by ti road from tho \shley riverbed, and for many years held grazing rights on the riverbed until tho formation of the Ashley River Trust, when all reserves were vested in the Trust. Miles admitted having sheep on the riverbed. F Langbein, chairman of the Ashley River Trust, stated that complaints were received from the Trust's foreman that wandering sheep were damaging the protective "works that were being put in. The foreman interviewed defendant on March Bth, explaining to Lira the necessity for keeping his stock off the groynes and allowing the willows planted there to grow. Witness said he considered the cost of reinstating the groynes would be m the vicinity of £SO. F Quinney, foreman to the Jtiver Trust, said that defendant's sheep destroyed all the work the Trust did. They killed all the young willows by eating off the shoots. Evidence Was given by A. K Koes a farmer living near defendant, that sheep were continually on the riverOn behalf of the defendant Mr Gresson said they did not dispute the fact tliat sheep were on the riverbed, but denied that any damage was done by the sheep. -On behalf of defendant he also denied that permission had been asked for members of tho Trust to go on his land. Defendant admitted that his sheep occasionally got on to the riverbed, but said that as soon as he noticed them he had them driven back. He attributed tho damage to the groynes and willows to scouring and flood waters, and said that a number of the trees had died for want of moisture, through the way they wese planted. John Miles, son of defendant, said his farm adjoined his father'? farm and was opposite one of the groynes, lhe fences were in fair order, but sometimes sheep did get through on to the riverbed. He attributed the damage done to want of moisture, scouring under the blocks, and flood water rushin,; over the groynes, Evidence was also given by William James Morris, who contended that the damage "was not caused by sheep. Mr Gresson, for the defendant, raised the point that the Act for tnis class of offence imposed a very high penalty, the maximum being £6OO but ho maintained that in cases such as this it was never intended to apply. The Magistrate said lie would reserve his decision.