Fines for Sheep Offences.

Patea Mail, 8 May 1882, Page 3

Fines for Sheep Offences.

Fines and costs amounting to £26 18s were inflicted on sheep-owners at the R.M. Court on Friday, as briefly reported in last issue; the Justices bei% : of Patea and 6. S. Bridge, J.P.’s. . . Mr H. T. G. Turner, son of Major Turner, was convicted of three offences against the Sheep Act, and mulcted in a total-amount of £lB 11. First for driving infected 1 sheep on highway, £5 and 7s costs; 1 Second for suffering an infected wether to stray on to Messrs Newland’s farm, £7 16s and 7s costs. Third, for suffering to stray six ewes and one ram on to Patrick Burke’s farm, Whenuakura. Mr Richardson prosecuted as sheep Inspector. Mr Turner admitted that this case was the,same; as:that fpr : 'which;lie Jhad just been fined. . . Inspector : These are the sheep Mr Turner carted’from Otoia to Wheriuakuriu and they’strayed froin there to Mr Burke’s farm. . : * Defendant : The sheep were' carted, but not the ram. Mayor: Do you know how they got on tp Burke’s place ? -- Defendant: These sheep were out not more than 24 hours when they got mixed. When I passed in the morning the fence was secure, but on going back’ in the evening!*found -a slip-panel ‘ pulled down. It could not have been rubbed down. It must have been pulled down by children, I believe, as I saw a child pulling it down two oythrqe: days -after-, I don’tknqw howj the slieep could have got-into Mr Burke’s place without Being let in; through 1 the gate, as he,has,got such fences. .. . The Magistrates conferred and the Mayor said : In this case there is no alternative hut .to inflict: :.the minimum penalty, of;. £5 and costs.™ Another case against the same defendant had been withdrawn before the above caaes. were: heard. -- ' ’- C. and E. Symes were charged with driving three infected ranis ofi highway without a permit from the, Inspector, on the 9thi March, at Whenuakura. Edmund Symea said ;: I plead guilty to driving the sheep on the road, but. not knowing of anything .being, the matter with .them. , They. wej*e sold to me as clean sheep; but after 1. had put them among my ewes, they were declared infected : !h’ree of four days after. I put them among 1200 ewes. Mr Bridge : Were you driving: these rams borne to your own place ? Defendant: Yes. Have you driven them on the road,: since ? ' , ........ Defendant : No ; their throats were cut directly we found them out. Inspector: There was no clean.certificate with these rams. They were scabby. Defendant : I bought • them from d* private party. I did not see the •. clean certificate, and they were sold to me as clean; 1 ' \ .'■, .. ’ , Inspector : The rams were scabby when bought, but he did not know they were scabby or he would never have bought them.- Thero must- have been scab on them, two or three weeks.before I saw, Lthem.,,;?,,'. ;V7 . I rn ‘c,:-: 1 f Defendant: These rams had always 1 been on a clean place, and I took the owner’s word that, they were clean. I. would’ not have bad them-;for £IOO if 1 had known anything Was the inatter with them.- T-have had to go to the expense of dipping nearly 1300 ewes since then, and perhaps 50' ewes at least; may be dead out* of the lot. It was not neglect. ’ Mr Bridge : The negligence was in not examining them when iyou bought them. Defendant: I defy anyone to see they; were scabby, looking at them in the paddock. By handling them, the scab might ; be found ,- -But'! was eager fb get the -fains among- the' ewes,' and I was satisfied, .that they had‘ been on clean ground. , , . ,

Mr Bridge : You ougiif'tp have detected : the scab,; having\u^ftunately. had.some experience.

The Justices conferred,; and the Mayor said : We have ho alternative tinder the Act but to .inflict, a fine. The amount will be £7 10s and 7s costs. Defendant : But the Act does not compelryou to inflict this ambrihfr Mayor : That is the decision of the Court. . ; ;

H. S. Peacock was charged with permitting!) rams to" mix with infected ewes, at Manutahi, on the 18th March.; : j Defendant; Not guilty, your Worships.

Inspector : The sheep hacilieeri declared infected on the Ist December, before the rams were put in. I visited them on the 18th March and found scab among them, and he had not a clean certificate. I saw these rams among the sheep. Mr Harnerton appeared for the defendant, and asked : Were his fences secure ? Inspector : I don’t go to examine fences. I go to exernine sheep. Defendant was sworn, and said :,I had 23 rams, but how these 6 rams got atnong, the ewes from an adjoining paddock I do not know. The fences are fairly secure throughout the farm, and I have’ used every care to keep these sheep apart. I stayed at home that day to receive the Inspector, who was expected. A gap must have been made during the night, for there were no rams among.the ewes the afternoon before. .'This mixing was a pure accident which I could not control, and I ask for a dismissal. The fences were furze. N

: Mr Bridge : Was there any gap in the fence-the following morning ?

i Defendant : . Yes, a very small gap, ,such as a ram would.get oyer. . The ewes were not in season for the rams at the time. Three cattle were found next day in the ram paddock, and I : expect the cattle had- broken through.from the pad-; dock where; the -ewes were kept along with cattle, and that the rams then go to the ewes. ~ Mr Barncrtbn then argued that,;: the defendant:having ;used ordinary diligence and care >to keep his : fences in order; he could not 1 bo held bl am able for a, pure accident like this, which was so palpably . against his. interest, the ewes not being in season for rains. If an accident happened from a cause beyond his control, such as a thunderbolt falling and destroying a fence, the defendant could not be held blam'able if bis rams got through that fence to the infected ewes. The common law of England required only that a man should use ordinary care and diligence ; and this Sheep Act could not over-ride the.cominon law of England. : : The Mayor, in giving the. decision of the Bench, said : The defendant seems to have used every care, and the rams could not have been; put among theiewes at this time intentionally,.? On these grounds the case is dismissed. Inspector;: I can appeal against you r decision, can I not ? ; • - Mayor ; Ob, yes. - .