The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1874.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 121, 20 October 1874, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1874.

A case of considerable hardship has occurred in Lyttelton, which deserves public notice. In the Natal Queen from Hobart Town there arrived two horses, which though perfectly healthy, have not been permitted to land. In the session of 1873, “ The Diseased Cattle Act Amendment Act, 1873,” was passed. A clause of this Act enacts that from and after the first of April, 1874, no cattle shipped to New Zealand from any foreign district shall be.landed in New Zealand, unless the owner of such cattle shall produce to the cattle Inspector at the port in New Zealand where they shall arrive, a certificate in writing, signed by a duly qualified veterinary surgeon, to the effect that such cattle were examined by him immediately before shipment, and that they were at the time of such examination and shipment, free from any contagious, or infectious disease whatever The unfortunate owner of these horses, Mr Greaves, was entirely ignorant of the existence of such an Act, and left Tasmania under the impression that two such valuable additions to our stock were sure to meet with a cordial reception here. But on his arrival the result is very different. The Government Inspector refuses to allow them to land, on the ground that the Act does not allow him to do so unless a clean certificate is produced, and such a certificate cannot be procured even by sending to Tasmania, for the simple reason that no veterinary surgeon saw the horses before they were shipped. The unfortunate owner will, therefore, be forced to take his horses elsewhere. Of course the Legislature is perfectly justified in taking every precaution to prevent the importation of contagious or infectious diseases into the colony, but surely proper steps should be taken to give the utmost publicity elsewhere of the existence of such an Act as we have mentioned. It would appear that such has not been done, or else that the authorities in Tasmania at the port when the horses were shipped, neglected to inform the shipper of it. But whoever is to blame, it is clear that enterprising owner of the horses must suffer serious loss. Surely the Act requires amendment to meet such a case as this.