GRAZING STOCK ON ROADS.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 897, 21 May 1903, Page 2

GRAZING STOCK ON ROADS.

COOK COUNTY COUNCIL v. W.

A. HOOD.

The case of the Cook County Council v. W. A. Hood for permitting stock to graze oil the public roads, came beforo the Magistrates’ Court yesterday, Messrs J. Tovvnley and A. E. Bridges presiding. Mr DeLautour appeared for the Council, and Mr Nolan for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr DeLautour stated the information was laid under Section 139 of the Public Works Act, 1894, Clause 10, which provided that any person permitting stock to herd on the public roads was liable to a penalty of £5. The information was brought because of the absolute necessity of protecting the roads. Farmers seemed to have an idea that the roads could be used for grazing. No doubt to a very largo extent that was done, and where a reasonable use of the road was made by sheep resting during the day no objection was taken—although a technical breach mjoht be committed —no notice was taken, but where a system of grazing on roads was carried out objection was taken. If ihe roads were allowed to be used as in this case, it would be difficult to discriminate, and any others could do the same thing. John Warren, Cicrk of Cook County Council, stated Mr Parsons was the County ranger. Ills instructions on receiving appointment were to stop grazing on roads. Theso instructions were published iu the press. By Mr Nolan : At the ranger’s request he laid the information. Tho Council had passed a resolution that owners of all stock herding on tho road were to he prosecuted. Mr Nolan read tho first letter received from Mr Parsons by Mr Warren, under date May 4th, which read:—"l wish to report that Mr Hood has had a mob of sheep herded on tlio road from Kempthorue’s to Mr Chambers’, a distance oi sumo five miles, fur tho past three days. Ho is waiting for the next stock sale. The men in charge are Dugald McKenzie aud a boy named O’Suiiivan. As this is the second time Mr Hood has been guilty of grazing stock on the road I wish you to lay an information against him in fairness to inyseif and the settlers.” Mr Nolan produced a second letter from Mr Parsons to Mr Warren, which recapitulated the contents of the former letter, aud corrected the name of the shepherd in charge. Witness stated that Parsons got 10s a week salary, and his salary was made up by driving fees. The- Council had no ranger in other parts of the County. The Council had no ranger at Tolago. A man named E. Boland was authorised to erect an impounding yard, aud to take stock off the Paremata block. He got no salary, but took all the fees. Parsons and Boland were dependent on their fees for salary. Mr Nolan : And naturally they depend on the amount of grass on the roads to tempo people to put their stock there in order to get their fees ? Witness : That is so. (Laughter.) Evidence was given by Dugald McKenzie, shepherd in Mr Hood’s employ, Alexander Parsons, county ranger, and Robert East. Mr Nolan said that on the evidence of plaintiff there had been no breach of the Act. The charge would not come under the first part of the section because they were being guided, and were not wandering. It was a question whether they were herding or being grazed on the road. W. A. F. Hood, defendant, stated the distance from Arakihi to Matawhero was 35 miles. Although he did not effect a sale at Matawhero, witness was told by Mr Cameron that there were about 300 or 400 fat stock which he would take for the

freezing works. The sheep were taken to Waercnga-a hika pending instructions as to the number to be sent to the works. He was informed ultimately that Mr Kells could not get them into the works. All the time the stock were on the roads they were driven for the purpose of selling them, not for grazing. James Macfarlane and Edward Murphy gave evidence to the effect that the sheep were fairly driven. Where there were no paddocks the stock had to get their feed on the roads.

Mr Nolan said he had other witnesses, but the evidence would bo much the same.

After i onsideration, the following judgment was delivered The Bench are of opinion that the charge of grazing the sheep on the roads is proved. They were grazed, not for the purpose of travelling. They were driven through this part of the road for the purpose of grazing, and this is contrary to the reading of the Act. The penalty is up to £5, but in this case, as it is the first in connection with this by-law, the fine will be £l, and costs £3 4s.