R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1947, 24 March 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-MONDAY,

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

R. R. Meredith v J. Drummond, Sheep Inspector.—Plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £3O damages, defendant having refused to grant a clean certificate to plaintiffs flock. Mr Gordon Allan for plaintiff and Mr Bunny for defendant. Mr Allan in opening the case referred to the inconvenience his client had sustained, and after briefly stating that he had frequently, though in vain, applied for a clean certificate for his flock, said he should endeavor to show that it was the duty of a Sheep Inspector, after examining a flock and finding it clean, to grant a clean certificate. Even presuming that the defendant put forward proof that lice existed in the plaintiff's flock, he must proceed to declare the said flock infected, in the same way that he would in case of scab, or he could not possibly refuse to grant a clean certificate. He should prove by documentary evidence that the defendant had admitted that the plaintiffs flock was clean. This evidence was given to plaintiff by defendant, He should further prove that plaintiff had been treated in a most arbitrary manner. Mr Drummond had examined the sheep in' 1882, and reported to Mr Sutton, the Chief Inspector, that they were clean, Not only did he do that, but at different times Mr Meredith had bought sheep, and

it became necessary before these Bheep were put on the run to grant them the usual clean clean certificate which had never been done by defendant. Mr Bunny 'submitted that the particulars of tlie claim were not set forth with sufficient clearness to enable the plaintiff to proceed with the case. He argued that the plaintiff should have set forth the dates of refusal, Ho altogether failed to gather froni'the particulars set forth when the cauße of action had arisen. Under the circumstances plaintiff must be nonsuited.

Mr Allan replied that it was not necessary to specify the exact day .when the defendant had refused to grant the clean certificate, because it was a continual refusal.

His Worship ruled that the plaintiff must supply the date when the defendant gave the refusal to grant the clean certificate.

Mr Allen then amended the particulars to the effect that the sheep were clean in January 1882 and May 1883, and that tho plaintiff had applied for a clean certificate in November 1884 and January 1885; that the defendant had on the days named refused to issue a clean certificate,

Mr R. R. Meredith, Bheepowner, Beaumaris, Whareama, and plaintiff in the suit being sworn, deposed: Inspector Drummond examined my sheep on January 3rd, 1883, and was satisfied that they were clean. I applied for a clean certificate, and he said to me " You must get that from Mr Sutton." Mr Sutton was inspector for the northern division at the time. On. the strength of Mr Drummond saying that the sheep were, 'clean - Inspector Sutton came up and superintended the dipping, and in that way I was enabled' to. sell the whole of them. I subsequently bought different lots of sheep, and obtained certificates for them. When I wanted to sell some of the sheep subsequently, I could not pick them out according to the certificates, and in May 18831 applied to Mr Drummond for a run certificate. (Previous driving certificates and permits handed in, some of them being signed by defendant), He came up and the sheep wero yarded, Defendant said "I wont give you a certificate because I found a lousy sheep." He did not tell me there was a lousy sheep till I saw him at the office. He did not Bay that the sheep were scabby. I brought various mobs of sheep on to the run since, some of which were certified to by defendant, I bought sheep from Mr W. Andrew, and got a copy of the certificate given him by defendant. I bought those sheep in May, 1884, and got a permit from the sub-inspector. I bought two thousand sheep at Akiteo, which were certified to by Mr Drummond, I also bought some sheep from Napier, another mob from Woodville, and some from Wainui, in January last, I never got a clean certificate for my run, and the new sheep were put on the old run, The three months required to have the run declared clean had not expired when I put the fresh sheep on, The original sheep were sold on permit. When I put' the new sheep on the certificates became void. The sheep were infected in the eyes of the law. Mr Drummond examined the sheep in May, 1883, and he has not seen them since. I have written twice to Mr Drummond asking for a clean certificate, but obtained no reply. I applied to him verbally in November, 1884, and January, 1885, and also to Chief-Inspector Baillie, There is a rule that inspectors shall inspect sheep once a year, which Mr Drummond did not comply with. (Copy of regulations put in.) I told Mr Drummond that my sheep were open to inspection at any time he liked to come up, and also threatened him with legal proceedings. The last time I saw him he replied to me, " Oh, I am coming up in your direction soon to make a general inspection all through the district." In May, 1883,1 had about two thousand sheep, That was at the date of the last inspection. When I applied for a certificate |iu January, 1882,1 had about 1100.

At this stage Mr Bunny pointed out that the Sheep Act contained no provision for declaring sheep infected simply because they were put on an infected fun.

;His Worship remarked that he certainly had been under the impression that there was a provision of the kind, though on looking at the Act he failed to find it.

Mr Bunny further pointed out that neither the Act nor the regulations made under it contained provisions directing an Inspector to examine sheep when applied to.

On reference to the regulations it was' found that it was only the duty to make an inspection when applied to by the owner on suspicion of disease, Plaintiff, cross-examined by Mr Bunny: 1 applied to Mr Sutton when referred to him, I told him I had found a purchaser. I got a certificate, and had no difficulty in disposing of my sheep. I sold on the 22nd Januaiy, 1882, and put on a fresh lot of clean sheep on the 20th of April following. I have never had any scabby sheep since, I attempted to bring sheep down for sale in 1883, and was obstructed by Mr Orbell on the Ruainahanga bridge, on the ground that I had no certificate. That was the first mob which I attempted to sell. Mr Orbell said he did not care a bit about the certificate I produced, and if I could not produce one from Mr Drummond, lie could not allow me to pass into his district, 1 have sold sheep since thon, but Mr Drummond told me several times that if I attempted to remove sheep from that run without having them dipped under his supervision, he would have me fined £SO. I havo never given the Inspector notice that my sheep were infected. Tho sheep I put on in April, 1882, were clean sheep. I have given Mr Drummond notice that I was going to muster my sheep and wanted them inspected, though I never informed him that the sheep were yarded.-. When Mr Orbell stopped me I forced my way through with them, and up to the present no proceedings have been taken against me for doing so. I never appointed a .time for the inspection of my flock because I could not do so, The number of sheep at present on my run is between 4,000 and 5,000. John Druinmond, defendant in the action and inspector of sheep for the North Wairarapa, was duly sworn. Upon counsel for plaintiff putting the question whether witness had given evidence before a Parliamentary committee—

Mr Bunny objected on the ground that evidence given before a parliamentary committeo was privileged under the Parliamentary Indemnity Act, 1883. Mr Allan said he did not propose to put in the evidence given beforo the committee.

Examination resumed—l examined plaintiff's sheep in 1883, and found no appearance of scab. 1 gave him no certificate because he held one. I instructed him to dip, but only on account of lice. fle asked for a renewal, which I refused. He then wanted me to cancel the certificate he held and give him an order to. dean. I refused to give a olean certificate because I found lice, I could not give a clean certificate because Mr Sutton was in charge of the district at the time, The certificate he then held was sufficient for all purposes, and applying to all the sheep he had on the run, He could deal with the sheep under the certificate he held. 1 did not compel plaintiff b dip up to the 17th October, 1884, but he had promised me to do so. My reason for not compelling him was that he promised to do so, and I had other work to attend to. Thesheep have not been acabby since JBBI. Up to about six or seven months ago I was

satisfied by personal visits thai the sheep were not scabby. I was on the ru» last in October 1884. I spent the bulk of my time.in attending to thoso-parts where there was scab, Mr Meredith had applied to me for a certificate on several occasions, but not in January last, nor have I any recollection of seeing Mm on the 22nd November on the subject, I think I told him in Februaiy that I was coming round for a general inspection. Plaintiff asked me to give him a a certificate, tint was predated three monthß, and I objected to do that. If I saw the sheep and did not give a certificate then I should want to see them again before I granted one. 1 have never cancelled cer tificates for lousy sheep, but it was donein Mr Sutton's time.

To Mr Bunny: Mr Meredith had not, for eighteen months, asked me to inspect the sheep, I would not give him a certificate dated three months before the time of inspection. If Mr Meredith had asked me to come at any particular time I should have attended if I had not any other engagement, He was not embar.rassed in dealing with his sheep, and had Weld a clean certificate since 1882, I have never gazetted Mr R, R, Meredith's sheep scabby. He never asked me for a clean certificate, but for a renewal. I do not give a fresh certificate at evory annual inspection.

This concluded the case for the plaintiff. ■■• ■

Mr Bunny submitted that plaintiff had shown no cause for action.

His Worship thought ho need not trouble counsel any further. It did not appear to him that a new certificate was required by plaintiff, or that plaintiff had suffered any inconvenience for the want of one. Mr Allan contended that a certificate given by an Inspector in another district was of no use.

Mr Bunny replied that such a certificate did hold good, as, for instance, sheep could be driven through another district under it. . After some further argument a verdict was entered for defendant.

Mr Allan asked whether his client could consider his sheep clean, and, if so, in the event of him selling any, of which of the numerous certificates he held should he give a copy. flis Worship replied that with regard to the first question the Inspector considered the sheep clean, though he himself thought that the sheep should not be pronounced clean except after a personal inspection. As to the second point he should probably give a copy of all the certificates.

On the application of Mr Bunny. His Worship granted £2 2s,solicitor's costs. The Court then rose.