SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1939, 14 March 1885, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

■ :■"■•_ ■IN BANCO. ' Thursday, March (Before His' Honor the Chief Justice and ■ '.. Mr Justice Richmond.)' . : . Cros3 v Drmnmond. ■■'.. : . The defendant drove certain sheep .through an infected run, not bavin" the permission' of the Inspector. The Inspector assisted the defendant to drive the sheep across a river, formerly the boundry but no actual'permission was given, an information being laid against the person who. drove the sheep for an offenceunder the Sheep Act (section 40.) The Magis? trate . held that the assistance of the Inspector amounted to a permisson and dismissed the . .information. Against this decision to informant appealed. Mr Travers, for the appellant, argued that the assistance rendered could not bo constiued as a permission. Tho Inspector swore there was no permission. Mr Bell, for respondent, argued that it wasnotan offence to drive sheep fioin a clean run to an infected run. S'o part of the Act prevents the driving of .sheep, on tho infected countrr; the offenco is driving through | from clean to clean through infected country. .Here tile only act that could be an offence is driving from infected to clean country; but thero the Inspector, by helping gave permission, Mr Travers replied. His Honor the Chief Justice said under the 46th section of the Sheep Act the Inspector may give permission to drive sheep through infected country, but it may not give absolute permission;," He must see that proper precautions are taken to prevent sheep being infected. The Act lays the onus of proof of fulfilment of tho requirements of the Act on the defendant. The point in this case is whether it appears on the facts stated that the defendant illegally drove sheep over part of an infected run. Before he crossed the stream the Inspecwas sent for, He came and helped the defendant to drive the sheep across. He helped not as Inspector, but outside his capacity as an Inspector. 1 do not think that Act constitutes permission. The facts are consistent with this—He found clean sheep on an infected run, and, without intending to absolvo tho defendant, he determined to help, I doubt if we ought to givo the word " through" tho restricted meaning contended for. If tho defendant had entered on an infected ran, driven tho sheep a short distance, and then returned the way he came I think that might bo an offence, Mr Justice Richmond: 1 am of the same opinion, What tho Inspector did in his private capacity may be what he thought best to avert danger. I agree that the assistance he rendered does not amount to permission. Case remitted to magistrate with this expression of opinion. Costs to appellant £5 5s.—N.Z. Times.