The Administration of the Sheep Act.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3485, 15 April 1890, Page 2

The Administration of the Sheep Act.

Infected with Lice- ■;> l In tueß.M, Court this morning ■'■■ before Colonel Kobertß, E.M, Wil- ' liam Lowes was charged by Inspector Drummond with a breach of section 0 of the amended Sheop Aot, in having in bis yards sheep infeotod with lice, and with offering the same' for sale, Defendant pleaded "not ■"•'■'• guilty.", . Inspeolor Drummond, sworn, . deposed that on the 9th inst,-. at Messrs' Lowes and larns sale yards, on- examining the sheop he found -.' them infected with lice.' The we're the .property of Me'ssra and'lorns, :"■ ' - •

Mr Lowes: You say that yon found the sheep in our yordßinflioted with lice, and that the sheep were our property, How do you know they were our property 9 j' The Inspector: I was told so. I • Who told you so? Tankersley told me, And who is Tankersley ? He is your drover, I believe. ! Did you ever see the sheep before ? Yw, I saw them being driven by . Tankersley, and I recognised them again. But aro mine the only sheop which T) come into the yards? • I don't know. > That has nothing to do with the case, The Court read a section of the Act dealing with the mattor, and stated that it considered these questions were superfluous, Mr Lowes i If this is the contention of the Court, then I am to be subject to the prosecution, or persecution the Inapeotor at any time. lam \-: debarred then, altogether, from crossexamining?! '■■.'■,

Tho Bench: No, you can crossoxamme,

Mr Lowes: 1 suppose, Mr Drumraond, you are aware that my sheep are travelling continually on .the roads, bearing tho same earmark? • I am, but Tankercloy told ma these were yours.

Can, you swear that the sheep which wore in the yards were the same? Icaa, But did yon not know that I had sold them to Mr MoKenzie ? I did not. You swear that the sheep in the yards were the same that you saw driven by Tankersley? 1 said so before. - v;.., ; This was the case for the proseenW tion,

For the defence, Mr Lowes stated . that his principal reason for defending the case was the manner in whioh ■: j auob cases were conducted. He th it was the duty of Inspectors to sue thatthe owners kept theirsbeep clean. It had been said the Inspectors could not deal with the sheep on runs, and so they came to the yards to-adminis-ter tbe

Tho Inspector: Canyouquoteypnr authority for tbis Btatomeut ? You told me bo yourself. When? ' On Wednesday last. Can you swear to this? lean. 1 think, Mr Lowes, yon aro at fault. Mr Lowes, proceeding, said that the majority of owners of Bleep did not. bow. what lice were, and they had no dip on their runs. Thosheep were brought, to the yards by owners unsuspecting a breaoh of the Act, He entered this protest against tho fining of the innooent. If the 6heep wore infected, aocording to the Aot they should not.bo allowed.to •< travel the roads., They should beW inspected by the Inspector, beforeK they left the runs. He would-nor ' say, more upon the subject, as he might bring trouble upon The Court inflicteda penalty of LI,. with costs, 7s. Mr Lowes: I pay the amount with all the pleasure possible under the circumstances. .