WATT V. HASTIN.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Issue 31, 24 December 1898, Page 3

WATT Y. HASTIN.

(to the iditor), Sin, — When & public newspaper takes upon itself to take to task the decisions of the court* of law, and to enlighten the public thereon, it should bo vary oareful that the nature of the cine warranti iti intervention, that it it correctly informed ai to the facts and law of the east, and that it it better qualified to inform than to mislead the public. I should not hare referred to this matter, because for various reasons I think it obviously undesirable that counsel taking part in any case should indulge in newspaper controversy in reference thereto, but I cannot allow your lemarks in jour leading article of last issue to puss unnoticed, as they are so grossly misleading, eridentl j being written under a misapprehension as to the Tiews expressed by me in the caxe, and of the lavr relating to the subject matter of the caie. You say that I insisted that a man is responsible for the criminal offences of his s&vants. I did not insist upon any such thing. What I did contend was that the principle that a man i« not responsible for the criminal offences of others did not apply to this case/ The Act provides that every person who permits any cattle to be grazed upon a road, etc. shall be liable to a penalty, and I eontsnded that this imposes an absolute duty on owners of cattle to see that they are not grazed upon a road, and if it appears as » matter of fact that they have been grazed it matters not by what meanp the owner has allowed this to happen, whether by entrusting them to the qharge of others or not. H« is responsible in that the oattle have been grazed and being' his* cattle he could have prevented it. The application of the principle ctnay be illustrated $y reference to a decision under the English Licensing Act, the case of Bond v. EVans 57 L. J.M.C 105. I/he head note of that case is as follows: — "Appellant, a licensed person', placed a servant in charge of a. skittle alley on the licensed pr«mises with express orders not to allow gamiiig. The servant, in the absence of and without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant allowed gaming to take place. The Magistrate having convicted the appellant under section 17 of the Licensing Act 1872 (35 and 36 Viet c 94). Held (by Manisty J. ! and Stephen J.) that the appellant y?ai rightly convicted." The words used in the Act under which that conviction was ■piade are " liany licensed person suffers any gaming 'or any unlawful game to be oßtri^'d on on his premises " he shall be liable' to a penalty, <fco. Mr Justice Stephen in giving judgment said " I do not thjolf that there is any real distinction between the words " permits" and " suffers," '' Thb wtxntion or

B»C. 17 13 THAT GAHING 13 PttOHIBITED, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PREVENTING IT Iff THROWN UPON THE LICENSED PERSON, IF HH I'AILS HE 18 STJHJECT TO A PENALTY." That «xpre»sly i« exactly the point of my contention, Tiz., that grazing cattle on roads is prohibited and the responsibility of preventing if. Jb throw u upon the persons owning cattle. If they fail to prevent their cattle being s> grazed they are liable to a penalty. In thp case of Henry v Felton 8 N.Z.L.R. 551 where a publican was convicted of hiiving sold liquor on Sunday, and it had been sold by his ■on, a boy 11 or 12 years old, and it was not even proved that he was in his father's «mployment, there is an expression of Mr Justice Denniston which will aptly apply to the present case. "If the appellant's view were to be upheld the door would be opened widely for an evasion of the Act and the value of publicans' sons of tender years on a. Sunday morning would bo greatly raised." If in the case of grazing cattle on public roads the law could be satisfied with the infliction of a penalty on every irresponsible urchin in charge of cattle, it would be an excellent means of raising th« demand for irresponsible urchins to take charge of cattle on road line*, but it is very questionable if it would tend to keep the roads clear of cattle. The public can judge for themselves whether in this case your interpretation of the ldw or that of the justices is {he moat intelligent. — I am, etc., W. M. Hamilton. Wainiate, 31nt P«e., 1898.