BLACKLEG: ITS PREVENTION

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 84, 29 September 1911, Page 3

BLACKLEG: ITS PREVENTION

PROSECUTION AND FINE. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Messrs. D. Berry and T. C. List, •T.'sP., the Inspector of Stock brought a charge,, laid under the Stock Act, against Jolui Magnus Forbes, farmer, of Xormanby, that on duly 17, at Mokau* he removed 00 calves from an infected area without obtaining permission from the Inspector of Stock. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. C. 11. Weston, who appeared for the Department, said that the case was one of crossing cattle from Taranaki to the Auckland province without .permis; sio'.v. One of the main objects of the Stock Act was to prevent the spread ot disease among cattle. Certain regulations were made under the Act, and in them Taranaki was declared to be an area infected with blackleg. Section 24 of the Act prescribed a penalty for anyone driving cattle out of an infected area without permission. There were no known cases of blackleg outside this province, so it would be understood that if any infected cattle were allo/yved, to go out of the district it would be difjj.c-u.lt to know where the disease would sitjopi The Act provided that if anyone wanted to take cattle out such cattle.. be vaccinated within three weeks ~pf the date of crossing. It would be seen that the Department was working purely in the interests of stock-owners and farmers and the country as a whole. Success could only be attained with the loyal co-operation of the stock-dealers themselves. Mr. Weston submitted thai a breach of the Act was therefore a very dishonest thing. The facts in the present case were, that in the face of instructions from the inspector defendant drove the cattle across the Mokan river without having them vaccinated. It wa.s done deliberately,■ and defendant remarked casually to a man who was there that he supposed' he, would get into trouble. But he (Mr. Weston) was instructed to say that the Detriment did not wish to press for a heavy penalty, but to hold the case up as a warning to other stock-dealers in the district. Defendant had somewhat ameliorated the offence by .pleading guilty and saving the Department some trouble in bringing the ciise. The bench remarked that in the matter of a penalty it was tied iby tiie maximum and minimum laid down in the Act. Mr. Weston said that while the minimum fine laid down in the Act was £5, under the regulations made on August 23, 1000, the minimum penalty was £2.

ilr. 1 Jerry said the bench would like to know what was the inspector's pro-. eedurc when notified that people wished to take stock out of the district. 'flic inspector (Air. Murno) replied that lie might have held the cattle on this side of the boundary for seven days, and if at the end of that time there luul 'been no deaiths or infection, ov he had no reasonable belief that there was a likelihood of infection, he would have allowed the cattle to cross. But he would have done that only because defendant, had got to the river with the cattle, and there was a shortage of feed. In ordinary circumstances he would have vat-ciliated" all the cattle and held them for seven days, and they could cross at I any time inside fourteen days thereafter. Not one beast under 18 months of ape would have been allowed to cross without vaecination. Replying to further questions from the Ikmk-li, Air. 'Mum-o said he had given instructions that the cattle were not to] cross until further instructions were given. The Department had, in accordance with the regulations, a representative at 'rongaporutu, Mr. O'Halloran, who watched for all young cattle crossing the river. Mr. O'Halloran told Forbes not to take the cattle across, and he then communicated with the speaker, who telegraphed to Mr. O'Halloran to ihohl the calves until he sent further instructions. But Forbes crossed in spite of that.

The bench imposed a penalty of '£3 and costs £1 Bs, and in doing so pointed out that it was influenced by the consideration that if defendant hud committed the offence unwittingly it would have inflicted the minimum fine, £2. But he did it with the knowledge tiiiat he would got 'into trouble. The. bench wished to make a distinction between the mam who committed an offence unwit.liugly and the one who did it intentionally. The legislature had showed that it considered the offence a .serious one by providing for a maximum penalty of £. : >o. Tn a similar case such consideration as had been given in this was not to be expected; instead, a very substantial line would be inflicted.