THE SCAB ACT: APPEAL.

Waikato Times, Volume XII, Issue 945, 13 July 1878, Page 3

THE SCAB ACT : APPEAL.

(From the " Herald.") t This was an appeal from the Justices sitting in Auckland, in the case ol Lewis v. Jolly, being «n information laid against the defendant by the plaintiff, in his capacity as Governl. ' ment Sheep lnspector.-Mr Hesheth for the appellant; no appearance was made by or on behalf of the respondent— Mr- Hesketh was heard at length, to the effect that the conviction in the Court below could not be good, inasmuch as no conviction could be sustained under the 23rd section where no knowledge of the existence of scab in sheep could be proved against the defendant. The particulars of this case have already been published at length. His Honor, in giving judgment said : I agree very much with Mr Justice Keating, where he says, in the case quoted (JSicholls v. Hall, 8, Common Pleas) that much weight cannot be given to decisions under other statutes than that in respect of which the particular case arises. It appears to me that cases of this sort must depend upon the construction of the language of the statute specially applicable ts each. Dealing with the statute in respect of which we are now concerned there can be no reasonable doubt that section 23 does make the mere allowing or permitting sheep infected with scab to be driven along a public road an offence punishable under the Act, and that without any sdeniia on the part of the driver or owner that the sheep are so infected. The language made use of in various • other sections (22nd, 29th, 30th, &c.)' shews thot there was a clear distinction in the minds of the framers of the Act between acts punishable when done knowingly and those punishable whether done knowingly ov not ; where any expression is found to be omitted, it must be taken to have been intentionally omitted.. The strict construction of the 23rd stotion therefore provides specifically that if infected sheep are driven along a public road— it dont matter whether the owner or the person driving them knows whether they are infected or not— he is liable. This is not the same case as if the animals were hypothetical ly infected, for there under the 29th section knowledge was requisite. The driving along a public road sheep actually infected (not hypothetically infected in the way the 29th section requires), is an offence punishable under the statute. If one icgtrd results, it might seem not a lair way of argument so to construe the Act, unless where the intention of the Legislature was clear and manifest Here, and in most cases of the kind, if we were to hold proof of knowledge to be nec»asary to secure a conviction, the statute would be rendered practically inoperative. The whole object of the Act would be greatly defeated. I am of opinion that sdentia was not necessary to make the offense complete ; that the magistrates were right, and that the conviction must be sustained. I do not dispute the general issues raised by Mr Hesketh upon the other sections quoted, but in this case proof of knowledge was not requisite. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.