UNUSUAL LAWSUIT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 104, 13 April 1933, Page 6

UNUSUAL LAWSUIT

COUNTY RANGER SUED. PLAINTIFF' NON-SUITED. A lawsuit of uncommon interest, was heard m 'he Hastings Magistrate’s Court yesterday atternoon when Montagu Smith and Co., butchers (Mr 8. Averill) claimed from William A. btevcns,H.B County ranger (Mr C. Willis) a sum of £3 5/- for a cow which it wan alleged had been shot by the ranger and wrongfully converted to his pWQ DMA, For the plaintiff it was stated that the cow, along with some other stock was purchased to be taken to Tomoana works, but by an oversight, the cow wa* left behind in a paddock. Later Ithe cow got out of the paddock and the ' ranger, without notifying the owner, i shot it and distributed the carcase to those who had helped to kill it. Plainftiff held that he had advertised the loss of the cow after it got out of the paddock but there was no reply, and the next thing he learned was that the ranger had shot it. None of the carcase waa given to tho plaintiff who contended that even if the cow had been a dangerous animal or was msaue as was 'alleged, its carcase could have been ■old outside the three-mile limit by plaintiff. “This is purely a vindictive claim and an abuse of the procedure of court,” said Mr Willis for the defence. “Plaintiff has had trouble with Stevens previously and he is bringing this action to get one on to him.’> * Mr Willis went on to say that defendant was called by the police to the road where the cow was, it having been alleged that it was dangerous and j.waa terrorising people in the vicinity. When defendant arrived, the beast charged his car which was slightly damaged, but he managed to work it into a paddock, where he left it to cool dojin. When defendant returned an hour later, he found that tho cow had broken out again and as it was such a danger he decided to shoot it. To do this he got authority from a Justice of the Peace. “In doing this,” said Mr Willis, ‘defendant did the correct thing, but the question was: What should have been done with the carcase? He thought it was a stray from a passing herd and had no idea to whom it lielonged, so instead of burying it as he should' really have done, according to law, he cut it up and distributed it to those who had helped in the destruction of the beast. “It would have been an offence to bare left tho carease about,” continued Mr Willis, “and if it had been buried it would have been an offence to dig it up again; therefore had the ranger carried out his duty to the letter, plaintiff would have lost the animal ju»t the same. Instead of going to tho trouble of burying it, however, defendant gave it to those who could use it, and I say again that it is a case of vindictiveness.” In his evidence, defendant said he still had the hide and was holding it until this case had been decided. His Worship said it was clear that the ranger would have been Tacking in his duty had ho n<jt destroyed the cow, and even because he had distributed it, there was no evidence of any loss to plaintiff. Plaintiff was therefore nonsuited defendant being ordered to return the hide to the owner. Defendant was allowed £3 17/- costs.