THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, DEC. 24, 1898.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Issue 32, 31 December 1898, Page 2

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, DEC. 24, 1898.

Our article in reply to the letter of Mr W. M. Hamilton on the case Watt v. Hastle whs unavoidably crowded out of our last issue. In his letter, Mr Hamilton has placed before the public the " arguments " by which he convinced a bench of Waimate justice! " that the principle that a man is not responsible for the criminal offences of others did not apply to this case." In commencing, Mr Hamilton implies that we are not correctly informed as to the " facts and law " of the case. Nevertheless, we are quite correct as to both facts and law. Our reporter's notes were very full and the facts were set out clearly and correctly in our former article. As our correspondent does not indicate wherin our statement of the facts is incorrect, it is probably merely from force of habit he used the phrase "facts and law, 1 ' and only meanß that our law was, in his opinion, wrong. This is a legitimate inference, as Mr Hamilton restricts himself entirely to the " law " of the cast. The question is really not so much one of law as of common sense. We are quite aware that law and common sense are not always identical, though they are oftener so than some lawyers and others would have us believe. We said, speaking of the case Watt v. Hastie, that counsel for the prosecution (Mr Hamilton) insisted that a man is responsible for the criminal offences of his servants. Mr Hamilton objects to this way of stating the position he took up. In his letter he states it thus, " What I did contend was, that the principle that & man is not responsible for the criminal offence! of others did not apply to this case." That is to say, that while he admits the gotmdness of the principle that one man shall 'not be held responsible for the criminal acts of another, he insists that

this principle has been set aside in cases of cattle being permitted to graze on* public roads. The Public "Works Act provides that every person \vho permits any cattle to graze upon a road Bhall be liable to a penalty, and Mr Hamilton contended " that this imposes an absolute duty on owners of cattle to Bee that they are not grazed upon a road, and if it appears as & matter of fact that they have been so grazed, it matters not by what means the owner has allowed this to happen, whether by entrusting them to the charge of others or not. He is responsible in that the cattle have been grazed, and being his cattle he could have prevented ■■ it." Prodigious I J In support of this extraordinary contention, Mr Hamilton proceeds to cite cases under the Licensing laws, showing Ihat the

principle that % man cannot be held re, Bponsibls for the criminal acts of otheri has been set aside in certain licensing cases, but these do not prove it has been act aside in cattle grazing cases any more than in cases of theft or perjury. He might as well contend that the owner is responsible for all other offences particularised undor the Public Works Act in regard to roads, as driving without reins, driving on the wrong side of the road, a driver being at too great a distance from his vehioie to have it under control, and auch like. To show the absurdity of Mr Hamilton's "contention," it is only necessary to quote his statement of it> substituting one of those other offences, thus : " Tha Act provides that erery person who drives a horsa without reins upon a road, etc,, shall bo liable to a penalty, and I contended that this imposts aa absolute duty on owners of horses to vsae that they are not driven without reins upon a road, and if it appears as » matter or fact that they have been so driven, it in itters not by what means tha owner has allowod this to happen, whether by entrusting them to the charge of others or not. He is responsible in that the horse has been driyen without reins, and being his horse he could have prevented it," It might be a palliation of the driver's offence if it were shown that the owner would not provide reins ; but the driver is directly liable, for he should have refused to do »n unlawful act. So in the case of permitting cattle to graze on a public road, it might be Borne excuse if a servant could prove that his employer told him to let the cattle graze, but tht servant would be liable in the first place, for he should have refused to uommi t the unlawful act of per, mittmg cattle to graze on a public road. In the case " Watt y. Hastie," the evidence showed that if an offence had been committed, the person in charge, not the owner, was to blama. In the licensing Uws, for various reasons, a degree of deviation has been made or apparently made from the principle that a man is not responsible for the criminal offencos of others, but it is useless discussing the vases quoted under these laws, as the taasons for deviation do not apply to cattle gracing on roads. If Mr Hamilton /;*nnot see this, the fault is not ours, we liave done our best for him. At the end of his letter, Mr Hamilton implies that our interpretation of the law is that " in the case of grazing cattle on public roada, law could be satisfied with the infliciion of a penalty on every irresponsible m-chin in charge of cattle." That is not nur interpretation of the law, and there was nothjng in our article to justify him ia saying so, quite the reverse. We were \ary careful to point out that every re;mPONsihi^ person who violates the law is bable to bear the penalty. If the owner tff cattle turns his anmjals out in charge of an irresponsible person, it is, of course, *a jf he had turned them out in charge of jio one, and the owner is responsible for ,#.ll consequences. In Mr Hasties case, £he cattle, as was proved xn eyidence, "ivere placed \n charge qi a responsible person with definite instructions not to them to graze on the roads. Had the young woman carelessly allowed the cattle to wander on to the railway Hue, and a fatal accident resulted, doos Mr Hamilton contend that Mr Hastie could be charged with the consequences. ?