THE CROSSING OF SHEEP OVER BRIDGES.

Press, Volume XVII, Issue 2317, 27 September 1870, Page 3

THE CROSSING OF SHEEP OVER BRIDGES.

TO THE EDITOB OF THE PRESS. Sib, —Permit mc to call the attention of the public, and of sheep farmers in particular, to a decision given on Wednesday, the 21st instant, at the Resident Magistrate's Court, at Leithfield. The plaintiff in the caso had lost a sheep at the Ashley bridge, owing to some of the planks being so wide apart that the sheep's legs had slipped through and become broken. To try the case, plaintiff sued the Kowai Road Board for 2s 6d, the value of the sheep. It was proved that some new planks, which had been used to repair tho bridge, were three inches narrower than the old ones; and that in consequence the original space of some three-quarters of an inch between the planks had, where the new planks were put in, become increased to some two inches or more. This was admitted by the defendants ; but they pleaded that the bridge was in a reasonable state of repair, and consequently they were not liable.

Now, to my mind, the whole question hinges upon this—Are sheep a legitimate part of the general traffic over bridges, and if so, ought bridges to be made safe for that part of the general traffic ? The fact that bridges in general abe made safe for sheep traffic, or at least that the specifications for bridges require that the planks shall be at such distances apart as is generally supposed to bo sufficient to secure that safety, appears to leave no doubt that sheep are recognised as a legitimate part of the traffic over bridges, and that there is an obligation on Road Boards to make or repair them, so that sheep may pass over safely. I believe it was not denied by the Board that they would be responsible should horses' legs slip through and get broken, but the Resident Magistrate argued that a line must be drawn somewhere, instancing that it was possible that a person might drive mouse deer over the bridge, whose legs he intimated to be no larger than a quill pen ; and that if the Road Board were made liable for the safety of any animals which might be driven over the bridge, it would be impossible to meet every ! case.

It will seem, I think, to the public generally, that to draw the most distant compari son between mouse or mice-deer (if indeed such animals really exist) and sheep, was altogether absurd in connection with the case in hand. It is probable that our worthy Resident Magistrate had moose-deer in his mind at the time, yet this seems inconsistent with the alleged tenuity of their legs, thatanimal being, according to writers on natural history, the largest of the Cervidce, and weighing from 11 to 12 cwt ; it is expressly

stated also that its toes are broad and divergent, which would bo incompatible with their slipping through even the gaping chasms just now alluded to ; but even granting that there are such animals as mouse, or mice deer, and that their legs are no larger than the quill pen which our worthy Resident Magistrate, with abstracted and judicial air held lightly poised between his fingers ; granting all this, it was to say the least, trivial, to bring forward such an instance to support an argument which concerned the safe driving of animals which constitute the principal wealth of the province. The decision was a nonsuit to the plaintiff with costs ; tho t-lfcvt will be, that for the future, it will not be compulsory on Road Boards to make or repair bridges so that sheep may pass over safely. It mm be necessary to draw the lino somewhere, but to draw v line with regard to the planking of bridges which does not include tho safe transit of so important a portion of colonial property, as sheep, is drawing it rather too fine. Let the line be drawn at mice-deer, if it be thought proper, but to draw it at sheep is (to sheep farmers at least) hard lines indeed. Yours obediently, Sheep.