BULL IN GARDEN

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 51, Issue 3110, 24 April 1942, Page 5

BULL IN GARDEN

BOROUGH TAKES ACTION COURT DISMISSES CASE CIVIL REMEDY FOR DAMAGES The sequel to an incident when a bull left a herd of cows with which it was being driven through Paeroa and broke into the garden of a resident of the Puke road, doing a certain amount of damage, was heard in the Paeroa Court on Monday before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., when the Paeroa Borough Council proceeded against E. B. Williams under Section 76 of the borough by-laws. This bylaw reads as follows: —“No bulls or wild or ferocious animals shall be allowed to pass through or upon any part of the borough unless properly fastened and led.”

Mr R. J. Harris who prosecuted for the Paeroa Borough Council stated that on March 30 a bull which Williams was driving through Paeroa had broken loose and gone into Mi' R. Ganley’s property, doing a certain amount of damage. Reginald Peter Ganley stated that while he was having lunch on March 30 he saw a bull break through the fence into his garden. Williams came along on his bicycle and although he (Ganley) opened the gate for him, Williams drove the bull out on to the road, through the hedge. Had Previous Trouble When questioned by Mr Carden who appeared for Williams, Ganley stated that he had had previous trouble with stock and had complained about it to the Paeroa Borough Council. This was the first occasion on which he had been home when the stock had been on his property and. he had been able to get the name of the drover. Magistrate: You evidently haven’t got sufficient fence round your property. Ganley: Oh yes. Mr Harris said that the point was that if a child had been on the road when the bull was charging about it might have been hurt. “We are not pressing for a heavy penalty but as a warning to drovers to keep stock under control in the borough. Magistrate: It is a question of whether the charge is reasonable or not. Mr Harris: It is certainly reasonable. If a bull takes charge and children are about the consequences might be serious. In this case the animal did considerable damage to property. Mr Carden contended that the bylaw was not reasonable. As the bylaw read it prevented a person taking a bull through the borough in a lorry. The bull had to be' fastened and led. 1000 Bulls Through Paeroa He added that approximately 1000 bulls passed through the Paeroa sale -year and none of these bulls when driven through the town were securely fastened and led. As no prosecutions had taken place in the past he contended that the council realised that the by-law was oppressive. He also contended that the garage entrance on Ganley’s property was an invitation to an animal to go in. J. A. Paul said that he was assisting Williams to drive" 40 cows and one bull to the Paeroa sale. There had been two droving and' two others giving a hand. All the stock were under proper control. The bull, he contended, was in the centre of the herd, when it saw the garage entrance—-and dived into it. It broke through the fence into next door and then into Ganley’s property.

He considered that to drive one bull with 40 cows was the safest method. He had never yet seen a bull led to the Paeroa sale. The Magistrate said that the position was that it was very annoying for any property owner to have stock damage their property but there was a civil remedy for it.

“If I was to convict this man I’d have the Farmers’ Union down on me like a ton of bricks,” added the Magistrate.

He then dismissed the case under Section 92 of the J.P’s. Act adding that he considered the prosecution had been brought because of the damage done and not because the bull was not led. Ganley had a civil remedy for the damage suffered.