An Important Case.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 127, 27 November 1895, Page 2

An Important Case.

Palmerston S.M. Court. (Before Mr R. L. Stanford, S.M.) j A CANCEROUS COW. | George Wallis was charged with hiud- ■ ering the Inspector of Stock in the per- ', foriuance of his duty. J Mr Baker appeared for the Inspector, and Mr Moore for the defendant. A. Morgan, butcher, said he purchased a cow from the defendant about three weeks ago. Defendant asked him if he wanted to buy a cow. Witness asked what she was like. Defendant replied that she was pretty good, but not very fat. On taking possession of her, witness saw a black mark on her, which looked like tar. Asked what it was, and defendant replied that was a brand. Paid £3 for the cow. Was totally unaware that the cow was deseased, and had bought her in perfectly good faith as to her healthiness. Did not get a receipt, having only paid .£1 on her, giving an IOU for the balance. By Mr Moore — Told defendant he was going to put the cow in a paddock at Feilding for fattening purposes. Defendant said he had cut this mark, which he alleged was a brand, with a knife. Could not say whether it was a brand or not. Asked defendant two or three times if the cow was right, and defendant positively assured him she was so. By Mr Baker — Was present at a conversation between the Inspector and defendant. The Inspector said to defendant " I told you two or three days ago to keep that cow." Defendant replied that the Inspector had not condemned the cow, but did not deny what the Inspector had said. G. W. Eavenhill, farmer, was present at an interview between the Inspector and defendant. The Inspector asked where the cow had gone. Defendant admitted that the Inspector had previously told him to keep the cow a day or two, but said Ml- Blundell had not 1 coDclemnetl her. When witness inspected the cow, expressed the opinion that the mark on her was a cancer. By Mr Moore — The actual words used jby the Inspector were — " Did I not tell you to take the cow back to the paddock and I Vould be down in a day or two ?" Mr Baker produced the certificate of the Government Veterinary Surgeon to the effect that the cow was suffering from an actively growing cancer. A. K. Blundell, Sheep Inspector, first saw the cow in April, when she had an unsightly mark on her owing to being branded " two deep." On October 29 noticed a growth on her at the root of the tail of a very suspicious nature. Arranged to inspect at a later stage of the day. Defendant said the growth was due to her being " horned" by another beast. Also noticed a swelling on her thigh. Witness said he was not prepared to say the growth was cancer, but said he would again inspect her later on. On November 7th asked defendant how the cow was getting on. Defendant said she was getting on fine. Witness said " all right, 1 will be up to see her in two or three days' time." Next morning he learnt that defendant had sold the cow. Found the cow at Morgan's slaughteryard. When confronted by witness defendant said witness had not condemned the cow. I Witness replied that, defendant knew he I hud no right to dispose of a cow when she was under his iwitness') supervision. When he saw defendant on October 29th, he told him there were at least a dozen people complaining of the cow being al- I lowed to run with others on the Boundary road, and defendant promised to keep the cow in his paddock by the house. By Mr Moore — When witness said he would be up in two or three days to inspect the cow, defendant said he would cut out the growth, so that it might be examined by an expert. Had never condemned the cow, and had not given defendant notice not to part with possession of her. The cancer had not grown from the brand-mark, but was at the root of the tail. Defendant, by acquiescence with his remark about inspecting the cow in two or three days, i undertook practically not to part with possession of her. By disposing of the cow, the defendant hindered him in the performance of his duty. . > Counsel having addressed the Bench, His Worship in giving judgment said the Act was a highly penal one and had to be construed in the most strict fashion. With regard to the moral offence he had nothing to say. He was not altogether satisfied with the conduct of defendant. As regarded the law, the question was whether defendant did anything which would hinder the Inspector in the execution of his duty by disobeying his commands. His Worship did not think so. The question of the condition of the cow had been an open one for six months. The Inspector had some suspicions, but had not condemned the cow. He did not think defendant had committed an offence against the statute in selling the cow. It was a horrible thing to sell a cancerous animal for human food. The information would be dismissed. No costs were allowed. — Standard.