Breach of the Stock Act.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 115, 13 November 1895, Page 2

Breach of the Stock Act.

SIXTY POUNDS FINE IMPOSED. (Before Mr Stanford, S.M.) At the Palmerston S.M. Court yesterday E. J. Riddiford, stock owner, on the information of A. K. Blnndell, stock inspector, was charged with being the owner of three diseased cows exposed for sale in the saleyards at Feilding oh the 27 th September. Mr Baker appeared for prosecutor, and Mr Hankins for defendant. James Shirley, manager for Mr Riddiford at Cheltenham, deposed that he entered nine cows for sale at Messrs Gorton and Son's Feilding sale on the 27th September. He did not think the cows were diseased in any way. He was inexperienced in cattle diseases Mr Riddiford was up at Cheltenham 8 fortnight before, and as they were short of feed told him to draft out all the stock which were forward and send then to Longburn and to pick out the others and send them to the saleyards. A. K. Blundell, inspector of stock, de posed that on making an examination ol the saleyards at Feilding on the 27 tb September, ho noticed a peu of old cows one of which attracted his attention, She was very low in condition and he immediately noticed her congh. Oc closer examination he detected that another one coughed. He proceeded tc Messrs Gorton and Son's office and as certained the ownership of the cows He informed the firm that he had con denmed two cows in the pen and woulc point them out when they returnee with him to the yards. In the mean time he condemned a third cow. H< afterwards saw Shirley and ordered him to destroy them that afternoon He arranged to take them to Mr Nor man's slaughter yards. He held a posl mortem and found one very badly dis eased. All the internal organs showeo signs of disease, the lungs, liver and dia phrani being very far gone. The lungs were almost a mass of solid cor ruption. If witness had suspicions thai a cow was diseased he gave her a rui around the paddock. In almost every case if the lungs were effected the am mal would cough. He forwarded por tions of the diseased organs to Mr Gil ruth Government veterinary surgeon. Richard Hull, stock inspector, deposed that the cattle were in a bad state anc showed every symptoms of being diseased Saw one slaughtered — it was rotten. John Gilruth, Government veterinary surgeon, deposed that specimens of diseased cattle were forwarded to him a( Wellington by Mr Blundell. The sale ol meat from the animals would be dangerous to the public health. Henry Pickerieg deposed that he had a conversation with Mr Shirley at Feilding about the cattle. He told witness he had killed one or two three days before the sale, and it was diseased. After he had done so he told Mr Riddiford that he had killed the beast, which was diseased, and there were others also bad. Mr Riddiford told him be had no rigbt to kill it, but tc pick the worst ones out and take them tc the sale. Mr Hankins said he would call evidence to prove that defendant did not know the cattle were diseased. E. J. Riddiford, the defendant, deposed that Mr Shirley was overseer of his property at Cheltenham. Shirley was not an experienced man with stock. About the 14th of September defendant went to Cheltenham and told Shirley to muster the cattle as there was little room for them, and the grass was short. Told him to send the beef to the Longburn property and the remainder to the saleyards. Shirley pointed out one with a lump and he told him to kill it. Witness afterwards informed the auctioners that he would have some store cattle to sell. Never had any complaint from Shirley ; did not know any of the cattle were " wasters." He first heard of the state of the cattle after they were condemned. Mr Baker : He did not remember a beast of his being sent from his Longburn property to the Palmerston saleyards and condemned by Mr Blundell. He did not trouble to investigate the case of the cow which Shirley had Bold. His Worship, in Riving judgement, said the offence of having the cattle in the ealevarcl bad been admitted by the defendent, but he denied knowledge of the animals being diseased. From the skilled evidence it was plain that the animals were in a shocking bad condition. He considered the owner of stock should either employ an experienced man or superintend the cattle himself. It was no excuse to say that it was the fault of an inexperienced manager that the cattle were placed in the saleyard?. The evidence of Shirlev was of a most unsatisfactory character. 4s the offepce was a grave one against public morality, he would impose the full penalty— £20 for each cow and £4 9s costs. — Standard.