DECISION REVERSED.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXXII, Issue 2801, 16 November 1931, Page 2

DECISION REVERSED.

MEAT SLAUGHTERING CASE. INVOLVED WAIHI ACTION. Litigation which has been before the Waihi Magistrate’s Court for some months, reached finality on Tuesday last, when the Magistrate (Mr F. W. Platts) reversed his previous decision. J. R Shaw, of Waihi Beach, was charged under two informations for breach of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1908. 1. That being in occupation of a farm situated within three miles of the nearest boundary of the Borough of Waihi, he slaughtered stock for barter or sale, contrary to the provisions of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, and 2. That he slaughtered on his farm for barter or sale a numben of stock greater than that permitted by the Slaughtering and Inspection Act. It was proved at the first hearing in April last that Shaw slaughtered 1 1 lambs in one day, and that the farm was within three miles of the nearest boundary of the Waihi Borough. The Magistrate convicted defendant on both informations, with a fine of £5 and costs. Mr O'Neill, counsel for defendant, gave notice of intention to appeal, but later the matter was brought before the Magistrate’s Court again in Waihi in the form of a re-hearing on 13th October. Mr Copestake, the Meat Inspector gave similar evidence to that given at the previous hearing, and also produced further witnesses to show that a sale of lamb had been effected by one of the farm hands on Mr Shaw's property to the witness, Mrs Sparkes. Mr O'Neill did not call any evidence, but rested his defence entirely on points of law. Counsel's ■’ontention was that the sections under which the informations had been laid conferred rights upon persons wishing to slaughter stock and accordingly were not penal sections and could not be the foundation of an information for the breach of the Act. There are several penal sections in the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, and counsel's contention was that if defendant had been charged with an offence under any of the penal sections, then the defendat would claim, in appropriate circumstances, the rights conferred by Sections 3 and 1 of the Act. The Magistrate reserved his decision. In delivering his written judgment on the 10th instant, the Magistrate stated that the Act is by no means easy to interpretate, but after reviewing the legal argument, he agreed with Mr O'Neill’s contention, and dismissed both information.