THE SUTTON INQUIRY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1996, 21 May 1885, Page 2

THE SUTTON INQUIRY.

The inquiry into the proposed removal of Mr Sutton, Sheep Inspector, from the Wairarapa to Nelson, and his resignation in consequence thereof, was resumed before Mr G. B. Davy, the special ccmmissioner appointed by the Government, in the Resident Magistrate's Court, yesterday afternoon. Mr Bayley, Chief Inspector, stated that he proposed to call Mr Jas, Harvey, who was anxious to get away, and whose evidence would not take long. Mr Sutton said he should like to see Mr Drummond examined first, as his evidence would be more important. Mr Harvey might be taken next. Mr Davy decided to take Mr Drummond's evidence first.

John Drummond, deposed: I am at present Inspector of Theep in charge of the Northsubdivisionof the Wairarapa. Mr Sutton had charge of both North and South Wairarapa, and I was under him. I recollect the Grassingdale (now Annedale) flock. I inspected it on the 24th and 25th January, 1883, supervised the dipping of 2000 sheep by the instruction of Mr Sutton, and granted a permit to drive them to Masterton, A clean certificate for the whole flock had previously been granted by Mr Sutton. Mr Sutton informed me that ho had granted a clean certificate. I'wag instructed by Mr Sutton to go up and supervise the dipping under section 29 of the Sheep Act, 'the sheep not having been clean for three clear months previously. Mr Bayley expired that if sheep had been scabby within three piqnths of the time when jt was proposed to remove them l)ey must be inspected sgain. Mr Drunpond contiuued: The sheep lyere (Jriyen dflwn as % ap Otahiwo, where they were jojnet] by a ipb that camefromGoatl)uratfarm,nearWelljngtqii. They were then taken to Kohiwai Mr ify. R. Meredith's place. I saw the Grassingdale flock some mpnths afterwards, and fgund that that some of the sheep were scabby. I should say that they Had got scabby again through stragglers, Tjfere weyeno rams amongst tlje Gripingdaio sheep that were driven down, but there wore some among those that joined lihem at Otaliuao, I saw some of the same sheep about four or five months afterwards but did not ace the films in the interval,. I remember going on the Ist May with Mr Bayley to inspect the Kohiwai sheep. On the afternoon of that day we went out on the run with Messrs R R. and M. Meredith. We examined several sheep, and found one crossbred wether, which we caught and inspected. It had a large patch of scab on it. It was killed and put into a toi toi bush. That night Mr Bayley gave me instructions to return to JJiyersdale and inspect all the sheep there. On my way there next day 1 paw several sheep on the run that were scabby. On the 4th I started to inspect all the sheep, and did not finish till the 24th, continued wet weather having delayed me a good deal. By the instructions of Mr Bayley I prepared a report, which was was to be sent to him through Mr Sutton (report produced and put in). In that statement I referre4 to the age of the sgab found, and it is, to the best qf my knowledge, correct. Some of the sheep were very bad indeed, the whole of their bodies being covered with scab. I could distinguish the different lots of sheep by the brands and earmarks on them. There was very little scab on the Grassingdale and Goathurst sheep, and what there was was new. At the time I inspected the Grassingdale sheep to give a permit Uould detect no scab on them, Mr Sutton; I might point out that the purchaser of those sheep was a dealer, and had brought sheep from various places, including Wanganui, and it would therefore be be very hard to say where the scab came from. Mr Drummond continued: I do not recollect giving a certificate for the rams referred to. I gave no certificate

for rams ■ that went to Mr Hitchings'in January, or Feburary. I know the usual procedure in cases of neW Bcab. A notice is immediately inserted in< the local payers, and the name and description are afterwards published in the Gazette. That is the rule that is always followed. If a name does not appear in the list I should presume the flock to be clean. When I inspected the Grassingdale sheep the manager and one of the shepherds were present. The sheep were passed ,in a small yard, first one side and then the other. I only inspected the Wellington sheep on the road, as they had a clean certificate.' If there had been bad scab' I should have noticed it. The sheepformerly belonging to the Kohiwai Station were far the worst when I made . the inspection there, Mr'Sutton: I have evidence to prove that the rams referred to were Goathurst sheep, that they were found scabby in the yard, and that they were killed after the inspection.

Mr Drummond: Some ,of those sheep might have been killed, but I dent think that all of them were. Mr Sutton: But 1 am.sure of it. Mr Bayley proposed to call further 1 evidence, but Mr Sutton objected. Mr Davy asked what was the nature of the further evidence which it was proposed to bring, Ho should be very much guided by that.

Mr Bayley : I dont think that should affect the question very much. The Department lias made no charges against Mr Sutton, but there have been grave reasons for his removal. I was not at that time in a position to bring- evidence to the point, but I can do so now. I have yet got to prove that from the 25th September, 1882, to the end of February, 1883, Mr Meredith was actually killing, scabby sheep on his run, and selling sheep for removal to other parts of the district, lean prove that, and I can also prove that scabby rams were removed from Riversdale to Wairongo, which was a separate part of the run. Mr Sutton was all that time ignorant of what was going on. It was after that that the Goathurst rams were found scabby. I say positively that at that time Mr Meredith had scabby sheep, and was sending scabby sheep all over the country under a clean certificate.

Mr Davy: I am here to inquire into the way Mr Sutton was removed, and into the causes which led to it. lam not hereto judge whether the removal was just or unjust, Mr Bayley; That was exactly thecauso. I made certain inquiries at the time, and felt quite satisfied that what I have now stated was correct, though I was not then in a position to bring evidence.

Mr Sutton: All the evidence that it is now proposed to bring has been got together only in the last week or two. If the inquiiy went on like that they might rake up something fresh every month. Almost any runliolder could "do" the Inspector if he wished to do it, There has been nothing shown as to where the scab came from, and for aught they know it might have come from Wellington, Mr Bayley: It is not likely that an inspector like Mr Richardson would have passed the sheep. Mr Sutton: I do not deny the ability of Mr Richardson; but infocted sheep are occasionally passed, and they might as easily pass Mr Richardson as any other inspector. I was at first told that the Department had no charges to bring against me, and now at the inquiry a list of charges is brought that has only been picked up a week or two ago, MrDrummond: No. All these things were known at the time the oiroumstances occurred,

Mr Bayley: It really matters nothing when we pioked up the facts. We. knov they are facts, and are prepared to prove them, To prevent me fiom producing the evidence prevents me from showing what cause I had to remove Mr Sutton.

Mr Davy: I must say again that I am not here to judge the justice or injustice of the case. I only want to ascertain the cause, 1 don't think that the evidence proposed to be called would assist me at all. ToMrSutton: Were you, Mr Sutton, formally called upon to make any report on the statements made in Mr Drummond's report? Mr Sutton: No. Mr Davy: I can't take' the evidence offered by Mr Bayley, and I suppose that closes the proceedings. The Court then rose.