FARMER’S APPEAL SUCCEEDS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25273, 27 August 1947, Page 3

FARMER’S APPEAL SUCCEEDS

CONVICTION QUASHED BY COURT . FEEDING OF CATTLE An appeal by Ross McLellan Mathers, a farmer, of Saltwater Creek, .Ashley, against his conviction by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., at Rangiora on October 16, 1946, on a charge of failing to supply proper and sufficient food to 20 head of cattle, contrary to the Police Offences Act, 1927, was heard by Mr Justice Fleming in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Mathers was fined £5 w’hen the Magistrate heard the case at Rangiora. Mathers, who was represented by Mr J. D Hutchison, appealed on the grounds that the Magistrate’s decision was erroneous in fact and law, that it was against the weight of evidence, and that he did not omit to feed the cattle properly.

Mr A W. Brown appeared for the respondent, David James White, an inspector for the Canterbury Sfociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Mathers had about 57 acres of land between Saltwater Creek and Ashley bridge, 25 miles from Christchurch, said Mr IJrown. About 11 a.m. on September 3, 1946, David White and two other men visited Mathers’s farm. They found 20 nead of cattle in what appeared to be an extraordinarily emaciated condition. It looked as if they had had no feed for some time. The paddock had practically no grass in it, and the bark on willow trees had been gnawed as high as the cattle could reach. White and the witnesses saw six dead cattle lying on the property. Two of the dead cattle were partially burned. All showed plain signs of being starved. White went to Rangiora and a constable accompanied him to Mathers’s farm in the afternoon. They saw Mathers, who said the cattle were fed that morning. Mathers called out to an employee, William Henderson, asking him if he (Henderson) took 10 bales of hay to the cattle every morning. Henderson replied that he did, and said he had taken hay to the cattle that morning. In the afternoon, cattle in another paddock were feeding on hay which, obviously, had been placed there recently. The ground showed no traces of old haytrodden into it. Neighbours said they could hear the cattle bellowing night after night

Evidence along those lines was given by the respondent, who said that he saw two bulls in the paddock fall down when they tried to rise.

Corroborative evidence was given by David Edward le Fevre, retired; Albert Genet, labourer; William Henry Malder, fisherman; Percy McMillan, labourer; and Constable A. V. Beattie.

Appellant’s Case The appellant, Mathers, had 38 cattle and two calves on his property at Saltwater Creek. They were all in one mob and had the run of practicaHy the whole property, said Mr Hutchison. He submitted that Mathers should have succeeded on his defence when the case was heard by the Magistrate, but he was in a stronger position now. Up to a fortnight before September 3, Mathers fed the cattle with six bales of hay and a dray of turnips a day. Then there was some sort of a hoodoo on his farm and six cattle died. Mathers’s brother suggested that this might be due to the cattle having been fed with frosted turnips. Mathers stopped giving the cattle turnips and fed them with 10 bales of hay a day up at the homestead. No more cattle died. On October 24 he got’ a veterinary surgeon out to examine the cattle. Two bulls were in good condition, but two young bulls were in poor condition, though there was ample feed. One bull w6s killed on January 28 and was found to be suffering from worm infestation. Evidence was given by the appellant and this was supported by evidence from William Keith Henderson, farmhand; Arthur Herbert Topp, farmer; Archie Richard Mathers, brother of the appellant, who said the willow trees on his property were barked worse than the trees on the appellant’s property; Horace Ernest Martin, veterinary surgeon; and Peter John McCann, veterinary surgeon. His Honour said he had decided to allow the appeal, though the word “appeal” was a misnomer. It was a rehearing and a considerable amount of evidence had been adduced which was not placed before the Magistrate. The appellant had given an explanation for the poor condition of his stock. There was no deliberate underfeeding or wrong feeding of the stock. Mathers’s appeal would be allowed and his conviction quashed.