DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1999, 21 July 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

CHHI3TOHDEOH. Wednesday, July 12. his Honor Judge Ward.] EEGINA V. KABBHMAN. In this case the appellant had been convicted before J. Beswiok, Esq., at Kaiapoi, in two convictions under sections 41 and 43 of the Sheep Act, 1878. T 1 e first conviction was “for that on or about the22addayo£ April, 1880, he did introduce by land certain sheep, [to wit, about 200 in number, from the infected sheep district of Waian into the clean sheep district of Canterbury, such sheep not having within fourteen days previous to such introduction been examined by a sheep insoeotor, and a clean certificate granted for tbs same, and without having given to the sheep inspector of the said district, of Canterbury at least seven days’ previous notice of his intention to introduce such sheep contrary to the Sheep Act, 1878,” and for this offence had bean fined £123. The second conviction was “ for that ho did introduce certain sheep, about 200 in number, from the infected sheep district of the Waiau into the clean sheep district of Canterbury, and did cause such sheep to be driven to and at a greater distance than three miles from the part of the boundary of the said district at which such sheep were introduced, and before such sheep had been effectually dipped, contrary to the Sheep! Act, 1878,* ’ and for this he was fined £23. Against these convictions Mr Earshman now appealed. Mr Spackman for appellant; Mr Percival for respondent, P. B. Boulton, Chief Sheep Inspector. Mr Spackman said—The question with regard to the first conviction is what is the offence under section 41. The conviction is bad for duplicity. Section 7 of the Justices of the Peace Act says “Every information shall be for one offence only. ” The offences in section 41 Sheep Act, 1878, are clearly two. If any person introduces sheep from an infected district into a clean district without the sheep having been examined by an inspector, and a clean certificate granted, he is liable to a penalty; if after having done so he introduces them without seven days’ notice ho is also liable to a penalty. Suppose be introduced them without the seven days’ notice would he not be liable thongh having obtained a certificate ; suppose he gave seven, days’ notice and introduced them without a certificate would he not be liable; it he would not be liable, having obtained a clean certificate and giving no notice, the part of the section relating to the notice has no meaning; if he would be liable two offences are stated in the same information, but he is adjudged to pay the penalty for the said offence, and it does not appear which is the offence for which ho is convicted. Reg. v Balamans and Durnford r East. 251. The conviction is bad for uncertainty. It says about 200 in number. The penalty that may be inflicted is £IOO, and from 5s to £1 for every sheep so introduced contrary to the provisions of section 41. The penalty must be certain. A penalty cannot be inflicted for about so many sheep. If there were more than two hundred it is the wrong penalty; if it were less there is nothing to show how that penalty was arrived at. The conviction for £25 is bad for several reasons. The offence is not complete. Section 43 saj« until such sheep have been effectually dipped at least twice within fourteen|days from the date of their being so introduced, to the satisfaction of an inspector, and until the owner of the sheep has received from such inspector a certificate to that effect. The offence is for both, not for one only. They must be driven, depastured, or suffered to stray in contravention of the provisions of this section. Section 43 is copulative ; section 41 is disjunctive. The offence is charged that he did introduce certain sheep before such sheep had been effectually dipped. We must conclude therefore that if they had been dipped he would have committed no offence ; but the Act makes that part of the offence only If that is the whole offence, it is not necessary to obtain the certificate of the if it is necessary, the whole of the offence is not charged. The words “ Contrary to the Sheep Act ” in the conviction will not cure an omission of charge on the information ; it is not enough to show that the party charged has acted contrary to the statute, but it must be shown in what manner. (Bex v Salomons ; Raley Convictions, pp. 178-181.) The sheep must be effectually dipped to the satisfaction of the Inspector: the offico charged is that they were driven without being effectually dipped; that is not the offence ; they might be driven after being effectually dipped, that is, effectually cleaned from any disease, and yet not be effectually dipped to the satisfaction of the Inspector. The whole offence must be charged, and nothing can be supplied bv intendment: (Paley on Convictions, p. 182) Mr Perceval, in support of the convictions, argued that the offence was all one. His Honor held on the authorities cited by Mr Spackman, and on the words of the 41et and 43rd section? of the Shesp Act, 1878, that both the convictions must bs quashed. Mr Spackman applied for costs. His Honor allowed the costs of the witnesses and their travelling expenses from the Hurunui.