Magistrate’s Court.

Cromwell Argus, Volume LXIII, Issue 3250, 13 February 1933, Page 5

Magistrate’s Court.

(Before H. J. Dixon, S.M.). J. R. Webb and Sons v A. McLeod. Judgment lor £1 7s 2d with costs ,-os» R. Congalton v Hartford Fire Insurance Co.; Claim for £\o. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs £ l, solicitors fees £\ 6s. Inspector of Stock v Ivan Bolting; Defendant was charged with that on divers dates between Ist July and November be slaughtered stock m other than a licensed slaughiernouse, Mr Wills, for the Stock Department, said that Mr Botting had a license from year to year but allowed it to laose last June. Jam-’s Ritchie, called for the prosecution, said Botting had slaughtered some bullocks (bought from him) on his property. Could not say definiifely but thought it was .'bout July or August. Also he had Killed some sheep. He had not actually seen the bullocks killed but had seen them hanging on the gallows. Cross-examined, he could not swear that he saw Dotting kii' them Was sure a bullocks was killed in August., John Anderson said that Botting had killed some sto *V m Novimber and one or two bullocks in the winter. Those were killed for himself (Anderson), and Dotting look what he did not require. Remem bore 1 speaking to inspector Bould and Dickie in November and admitting tha*- B. tting had been killing at his place. Cross-examine.!, lie said the bullocks were killed for him and if any was tc spare Botting got it. As a rule Botting generally took his stock away. It was just a couple of times he killed at his place.

To the Magistrate: 'Hie sheep were killed about the Bth of November. There was no registered slaughterhouse on his place. David Nico! said that he had hoiught meat from Rotting ever since he started. For the last four or five years. Cross-examined, he had seen meat bought himself from Rotting. Inspector Dickie said that he had warned Dotting for killing at farms , while* he had his license and after. I Several times notified Rotting that hilicense had lapsed since lime. Had interviewed Rotting on 18th October, at Bannockburn, when he was warned against killing meat at farms and that he had no license. Had also warned Rotting by letter (copy produced). Was aware that Rotting had been killing in Mr Thomas’ registered slaughterhouse. On November 18th Mr Wills and he had a talk to Rotting when defendant asked him to look in his bus .where he had a load of meat with a registered brand, Mr Thomas’ brand. Cross-examined, he realised that a ; man could be getting meat iroru Rurnside and sell it. He was p’ld ~ Rotting was not killing in his slaughterhouse. Did not consider it his . duty to prosecute without giving a fair warning. Had not caught a butcher at Pembroke killing his own stock outside a registered slaughterhouse. He W«s not on bad terms witj.li Rotting. It was about 1 2 months ago when he first had word of Rotting killing outside his slaughterhouse. William Wills. Chief Inspector, m , Dunedin, isaid that on November 18th, J with Mr Dickie, he interviewed Rotting I on the way to Bannockburn and Rot- j ting admitted killing outside a registered slaughterhouse during the time he rad no license and said they were all doing- likewise. Asked to put « statement in writing he refused and would make no further statement. Said the meat he had that day wap killed in a registered slaughterhouse. He had carried on (mtsipe.ss as a butcher for some years ami although ■ they had not much evidence it was a well-known fact that the meat was not destroyed or given away. To -the Magistrate; Rotting did not deny selling the meat. Rotting had no shop, fust a van. Counsel for Rotting said that it had. not been proved that this meat was tor human consumption. He further submitted that the information was laid under the lustices of Peace Act, and was wrongly laid. He strongly questioned as to whether the informaI tioii was any good. Contended that there was a veil of hostility between ,vbe local Inspector and Rotting eV.er since they refused his license and Rotting lind gone over their head and had 1 the license granted. He considered it would be oppressive to hold that a butcher could not kill a few sheep at a farm. The Magistrate said that there was onlv one week on which h'e could convict. Tfv mil'* conclusioi* to be drawn was that i»p was killing for Tinman consumption. Defendant would In: convicted and ordered to pa.y j witnesses expenses £2 2s. with court c*>sts £\ US.