THE MARKING OF SHEEP.

Feilding Star, Volume I, Issue 134, 5 December 1906, Page 3

THE MARKING OF SHEEP.

RIDDIFORD v. THE STOCK DEPARTMENT. In the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, Dr. McArthur heard the appeal of E. J. Riddiford, the owner of several sheep runs in the Wellington district, against an order of the Stock Department that he should change his sheep brand and earmarks. The order of the department was made on the ground that Mr Riddiford's sheep brand was similar to that of Mr Death, of Otaki ; that one of his ear-marks was the same as that of Hira Parata, of Waikanae, and that in each case Riddiford's brand was registered later than that of the other owner. Mr C. P. Skerrett appeared for Riddiford, and Mr D. M. Pindlay for the Department. Mr Findlay asked for a remand. He submitted that the present dispute would be settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mills v. Riddiford, which His Worship had promised to submit to that Court. Mr Skerrett, for Mr Riddiford, argued that the decision in the case mentioned would not affect the case before the court in the slightest. After further argument, Mr Findlay said he had consulted with the Department's inspector, and they were so satisfied that the decision in the previous case would settle the dispute, that they had decided to withdraw the application. Mr Skerrett submitted that his friend could not withdraw the application unless he was prepared that the oase should be determined in favour of Mr Riddiford. The Magistrate decided to go on with the hearing. Alfred Mills, stock inspector was examined by Mr Skerrett. Witness could not explain why Mr Riddiford's application for registration of a brand in January, 1883, had not been granted till May, 1884. whereas Mr Death, who had applied for registratration on March 3rd, 1883, had had his application granted two days later. Witness had received no complaints of confusion of Mr Riddiford's stock brands with those of other owners. However, if the sheep should ever be placed together with those of Hira Pirata, of Waikanae, in any stock-yard, it would be impossible to distinguish them. Mr Riddiford's ear-mark for wethers was exactly the same as that of Hira Parata. Edward Joshua Riddiford said his ear-mark and stock brand had been used ever since 1851, and he had used the brand on bales of wool. There had been no trouble in regard to the brand hitherto. The brand was of value to him, and there would be great confusion if it were altered. His ear-mark was quite distinct from that of Hira Parata, and there was no possibility of confusion. Cross-examined by Mr Findlay,witness said his ear-marks for wethers ■ was the same as that ot Hira Parata. Mr Jj'intllay submitted that his case was proof ot Mr Kidditord's evidence. The action of the department was taken in pursuance of its policy of preventing contusion arising among shewp-brands in ths district. Tne department had been endeavouring tor three years to induce Mr Ridditord to change his earmark. John Drummond, stock inspector, called by Mr J? indlay, stated that the registration ot brands in May, 1664, had been recognised by the depart went as illegal. Riddiford's only eliective registration was that entered on June lyth, 18d4. Hira .rarata's registration was one day earlier, Juna lttfch. Mr Death's registration was on the 19th. Other witnesses gave evidence that confusion was likely to arise between the Ridiford brand and the others Mr Skerrett summed up his arguments. Dr. McArthur, in giving judgment said he must take into consideration the fact that Mr Kiddiford had used his brand for so very many years. There was confusion in regard to the dates of registration as entered in the department's books. He must also take into consideration the fact that there had been no actual confusion of brands. The Act appeared to provide that brands must be altered only in cases in which conf agioaa. had arisen. Jf« saw .no xea--son to order That Mr Riddiford should change his brand.