R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1800, 29 September 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.—MONDAY.

(Before H, S, Wardell, R.M.)

Drummond v Mackay.—Prosecution uuder section 23 of the Sheep Act, 1878. Mr Bunny for the prosecution, Mr Beard for the defence.

The particulars stated that notice to Thomas Mackay of lea station to clean was served on the 9th of October, 1883, for 18,400 sheep. The six months allowed expired on the 9th April and defendant had failed to clean them for a further period of 3 months to 9th July. Inspector Druminond, sworn, said lie had inspected the sheep in November, December, and January, and found them scabby, and he inspected them also in April, May, June, and July of the present year and found them still scabby, Defendant gave him the number of his sheep as 20,248 on July 4th. He inspected some sheep which were just killed, and they were very scabby, scab several months old. This was on sth July. He was there again on the lKh and inspected, and found four scabby sheep, and Yallance saw one, these were a part of the flock. The flock was scabby on the 11th, He had not seen any scab since the 11th because these sheep were killed on that day. Mr Mackay seemed to have given up the charge on the 11th, as he said he would have to await instructions, Had known Mr Mackay to have had charge of lea for the last nine or ten years, One certificate had been issued for the whole, Mr Mackay gave him the quarterly returns and he entered them for that. The sheep had been ou the infected list ever since and were still on it,

By Mr Beard—Had known Mr Mackay ever since he had been in charge. The flock was scabby when he took charge and he in due time got a clean certificate, He lost his certificate about five years ago. He knew Mr Mackay as a man who thoroughly understood scab and was energetic in dealing with it. After he got notice of scab he took the necessary steps by shearing a few days after, and as they were shorn, weather permitting, they were dipped. He could not Bay how many times they were dipped—Mr Mackay had informed him that it was three times. The whole of last summer was a difficult one in which to get rid of scab. It was the worst season he had ever experienced in his life. They had better weather in winter than that summer. He did not find the scab in the first instance, Inspector Smith informed him of it. He told witness it was in the Eangitoto paddock. He first saw the scab when riding through with Mr Orbell. The run is divided into a number of paddocks. He last made an inspection on Wednesday and Thursday last, There were 9000 sheep. He did not grant a clean certificate because he had not examined the whole flock, and the three months had not expired for the whole flock. He did cot say this of his own knowledge. He did not take the declaration from Mr Mackay that the sheep had been olean three months. He had granted a clean certificate for 1260 sheep (a part of the flock) to which the notice of the 9th October referred.

By Mr Bunny-He gave the certificate because he was informed thev were Mr W. Andrews' sheep, " were worked under a separate yard. Mr W. Andrews was living in a whave there at the time. He since had reason to doubt there being sheep on a separate run, they had since gone back to the lea station, Mr Mackay told him be was instructed to apply for a clean certificate for the 9,000, but he (witnesß) told him he would not give it hit? until he had inspected the whole of the run.

Inspector Smith, sworn, said he found scab on 3rd October in the Rangitoto paddock. He found two on that day, and informed Mr Mackay. There were sheep in the adjoining paddocks. He went through the sheep after aud found scab in different paddocks on the run, The order to clean that he gave on 9th October to Mr Mackay was for the whole run, the

number given at tliat time being 18,400. ■ Mr Beard, for the defence, said lie would show first that Mr Mackay had taken all proper and reasonable steps to eradicate scab, and next that the flock on which scab was fonnd was a separate floek.Jrom the run and that if the Inspector wanted to declare the whole run infected, he should have examined each flock,, instead of that,, having found one sheep in the Rangitoto Hook, he, on the strength of that, declares the whole main body of the sheep to be infected with scab. That evidently was not the intention of the Act, as flocks mean within the bounds of one paddock and he would ask the Court to take that construction.

His Worship said the word flock was not mentioned in the clause and it could not agree with the view taken by the defendants counsel of the reading of the Interpretation clause. Mr Mackay sworn, said he was defendant in this action. On the 3rd of October Mr Smith informed him he had found scab in the Ra igitoto paddock which contains about 700 acres. There were about 12,000 sheep running there as a separate flock. He received the order to clean on the 9th of October. On the whole property there were now about 18,200 sheep. Since the order was given there has been 1,260 sheep disposed of to Mr W. Andrew, He was in possession of a portion of the station. 660 odd has been killed for station use, and 680 have been destroyed as too weak to travel, Of the 18,000 there were on the first of. January about 5106 lambs.

By Mr Bunny: About January last tne 1200 were disposed of to Mr W. Andrews, About 150 have been , repurchased by the Rev J. C. Andrew. The Break-neok . Flat was under witness' charge for a short period. The 1200 sheep were on this run and ormed part of the main flock when sold. Ho had had full charge of the lea. Stations for the last ten years. They had always had two yards, The Rangitofco sheep were clipped in the Homestead yards which adjoins. The Court adjourned to 12.30. On resuming and further evidence being taken, judgment was given for plaintiff, defendant being fined in the minimum penalty, which amounted to L 237 10s. Notice of appeal was given,