R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1677, 5 May 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

JIASTERTON-THIS DAY. (Before Mr H. S, Waiidell, R. II.) J. C. Ingram v M. Dunne, chimney, on (ire. Mr Boddington asked, on behalf of the defendant, that the case should be favorably considered, as the cause of the fire was bad sweeping. The informant corroborated this viow of tho case, and the Court inflicted a fine of ten shillings. Drummond v J, McKcnzie,' breach of Sheep Act, Mr Bunny for informant, and Mr Beard for defendaut. ■ Mr Beard stated that the summons had been originally served for the Bth, but by arrangement it had teen, decided to determine it at the present sitting of tho Court. : '

Mr Bunny stated that tho case against the defendant was, that he haddriven rams from Hawko's Bay'to-tlie Wairarapa district without a certificate. • :

J. Dnin'.mond, Sheep Inspector, deposed that he knew Mi' Harvey's run at A kiteo. Witness spoke to Mr Harvey respecting sixty rams purchased by him in Hawke's Bay, (To Mr Beard), Know nothing of the facts of the case beyond what he'had learned from Mr Harvey. To Mr Bunny: The Wairarapa North Subdivision was an infected district,

Jolin' Harvey, called, deposed • that lie was the manager of the Akiteo North run on Hie boundary of. the Hawke's Bay District, He purchased recently sixty rams from the Hawke's Bay District, and gave .'-Mr-; Drum-, mond, by a telegram, the usual notice for crossing the boundary. McKenzie, a shepherd in his employ, took the rams through the boundary fence. Mr Beard objected at this stage to evidence being given of any conversation which took place between Messrs Drummond and Harvey. Mr Bunny said that if this were not allowed he should have to lay a fresh information and bring Mr Harvey again to Ma'sterton.' : : .

-Witness continued: (to Mr Beard) The northern boundary lino of the station was the boundary of ihe two sheep districts. The creek : \ras the boundary, but: the fence was a little way from the creek. To get through from one district to the other he had to travel over a chain or two, When lie bought the sheep he did not communi-

cate with any. of the Hawkes Bay Inspectors, but his shephord did, Mr Munyo inspected the rams before they came to the boundary. When they arrived at the station they had tho official •' clean" brand on them. They camo from a clean district. The Akitio runwas.a clean station.

Donald Munroe, an Inspector of the Hawke's Say District saw the sixty rams in February last as tlioy were being driven to'Akitio. He inspected them and found them to be clean. He asked Mr Harvey for his certificate, but he did not produce it. • The sheep were in a quarantine paddock at Wainiata for seven days to enable Mr Drummond to receive tho notice for crossing tho; boundary; •,;.

To Mr Beard: The flock from which the rams were taken was a clean one. The boundary ifence was three chains from the boundary stream. He understood Harvey to tell him that he had a certificate through Bishop from Paisley, tho Inspector. Harvey did say, "I have not got a certificate but Bishop has." "Witness did not consider that Mr Harvey desired to evade the Act, If he had told witness that he had no certificate, witness would have granted him ono there and then. . Mr Beard submitted, that the prosecution failed, as the flock from which the rams came and the flock to which they went were both clean. The clean certificate of the Akiteo station protected the rams,The Court; Do you contend that a clean flock carried with it ths clean certificate 1 Mr Beard-: Clearly so. There is nothing in the Act to show that a portion of a flock should be deemed to bo a separate flock, (Lett sitting.)