I.—B

14

99. It was a suspicion that it was cancer that made the Inspector apply for slaughtering under inspection ?—Yes ; this occurred about six weeks ago. Mr. Lawry : I would respectfully submit the Inspector neglected his duty. In Auckland the cattle would not have been permitted to be sold. Witness : He allows them to be sold, but he immediately intimates to the purchaser that he need not pay for the cattle until he gets a permit. He arranges that they need not be paid for until after they are killed under his supervision. In the event of this Bill not passing, the butchers would suggest that something should be done, say by an addition to the old Act to remedy this on their behalf. There is no guarantee given at present. 100. Hon. the Chairman.] I understand you to say that the producer would know in this case that the meat was not fit for human consumption?—Of course, he might not know, but the producer has a far better opportunity of judging what the cattle are than the butcher who goes into the yard and buys on the moment. In every other business the producer in selling guarantees that the goods sold are not utterly worthless. It would also help the producer, as in the event of his guaranteeing his stock he would always get an enhanced price. 101. Do you think it should be optional with the producer to give a guarantee ?—I think it should not be optional. 102. What amendment would you have in the clause ? —I would have it that the producer be held responsible. 103. Mr. Flatman.) I should like to know whether, in the case of the cattle purchased at Addington yards, there was any visible swelling? —I did not detect any. Had they not been in good condition one might have been careful, but they were really fine cattle. The producer has the name of producing really fine stock. I may say that he voluntarily made a refund to the dealer after the sale, though not to the full amount. 104. Mr. Buchanan.] Did you yourself see any of these diseased cattle after they were killed ?— No, I did not see any of them. 105. Yet the Inspector declared that they were cancerous about the head and neck, although you, with such experience among stock, were not able to see any sign of it ?—I saw none. 106. Do you not consider that most extraordinary?— Well, of course he makes it his business to inspect as an expert. Of course we have no time to do that sort of thing. He might have known where the cattle came from, or what was to be expected from this herd, and having found one in the pen his attention would be directed more particularly to the others. No one but an expert could have had a suspicion as to there being anything the matter. 107. You put a large number of cattle through your hands ?—Yes. 108. You buy them singly and otherwise at Addington ?—Yes. 109. And you say that the producer should in all cases be made liable ?—Yes; he should give a guarantee that the stock sold is fit for human consumption. 110. Suppose on a sale-day at Addington you buy twenty head of cattle in several lots. I presume these are put together and driven to your yards, and then taken to the slaughter-house ? y eSt 111. And you proceed to kill them, say, a week after the sale, as suits you?— Yes. 112. Presuming that you have purchased one or more from a Timaru seller, and on slaughtering you find some are diseased that you imagine belong to him, how is the Timaru seller to be protected against possible fraud or mistake, on your part? May not a claim be made on any one that his cattle was diseased?—l must admit there might be a difficulty there. But, still, I dare say that the trade in Christchurch as a whole are not in the habit of keeping large numbers of cattle by them. It is generally a weekly supply that is purchased by three-fourths of the butchers, and they would know perfectly well where the cattle came from and who sold them, and if a provision as proposed were put in the Bill the butchers would be very careful to mark each lot as they bought them, so that they could always tell from whom they were purchased. 113. The Christchurch Meat Company is a buyer of sheep by hundreds and thousands. Do you think that what you say should apply in the case of sheep ?—I did not refer to sheep so much as to cattle. 114. Supposing the case of a North Island company which buys its hundreds of cattle. How would you suggest that the producer could be protected when these various lots of cattle got mixed up—how could the stock belonging to all the different owners be distinguished ?—The buyers would have to protect themselves before mixing their herds, and ascertain whether there was disease or not. 115. But in a case where discovery was impossible before slaughtering?—lt would be a difficult case without the buyer had the cattle some time with him. 116. Would you look at clause 19 of the Bill. You have a slaughter-house of your own ?— Yes. 117. Have you considered how that clause would affect your position in the event of an abattoir being established for the Christchurch District ? —I do not know what the intention of our legislators may be, but We are looking forward to having no license once an abattoir is erected. 118. It is confiscation practically of the appliances you had for carrying on your business ?— Yes. I have leasehold premises. Of course, there is no compensation provided for that in the Bill. I should have to give up the lease, and would get no compensation for the buildings.

Thursday, 2nd December, 1897. Mr. D. Sladden examined. 1. Hon. the Chairman.] You have heard the evidence given before the Committee by Mr, Anderson ; you were present when he gave his evidence ?—Yes,