DISEASED CATTLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13778, 17 June 1908, Page 8

DISEASED CATTLE.

"A SCANDALOUS PRACTICE/'

At the Police Court, yesterday morning j Mr. C. C. Kettle, 8.M., gtue his unserved i decision in the <-;;. ; e in which J-crmyn i Evans was charged, on the information of ' Mr. R. tlitll, skvk inspector, with havj ing exposed a. di-v.i>e:i cow for sale at j Buck land's saie -.aids, and with obstructJ ing the inspector when required to give I information as to how the cow got there and whO owned i:. Mr. S. Mays appeared for the. prosecution and Mr, Brooki I field for the defence.

Mr. Kettle said the fact* of tin: case were not disputed. The cow, which was undoubtedly diseased, was owned by a farmer and driven to BnckJaiid's sale yards by defendant, not for the purpose of sale, but in order that it might lie examined by th-j stock inspector, and cither condemned or passed as healthy. The. evidence showed that the fanners were in the habit of taking cattle to sale yards for the purpose ol having them examined. This was a- very wrong one, and it was difficult to understand how it was thai inspectors had allowed it to continue. Any stock infected or diseased urns' not be taken to any place when? there was a likelihood of the disease spreading to other animals. Section 25 was quite clear on this point. To bring diseased cattle to a yard where healthy ones were taken for sale was a grave, offence, and it was difficult to understand how if had been tolerated. It appeared to him to be simply scandalous. Defendant had made himself liable, as he was in charge of the cow when she was discovered by the inspector. Looking at the whole of the circumstances lie did not think he ought to impose a severe penally in this case. Defendant would be fined 20s. and costs on the charge of exposing the cow for sale. The maximum penalty for this offence was £20. With regard to the charge against Evans of hindering Ihe stock inspector, Mr. Kettle went on to say that defendant hud taken up a very insolent attitude when he was asked by Mr. Hull about the ownership of the cow. There was nothing to show why the defendant should not have answered .Mr. Hull's questions. It was the duty of all respectable people to assist the inspectors in carrying out their work. Evans had hindered the inspector in the performance of his duty, but as he (Mr. Kettle) believed it was the first prosecution of the kind under the Act, lie would fine him the nominal penalty of £1 and costs. The third information was withdrawn. Mr. Mays said it was only fair to Mr. Hull to say that the practice Mr. Kettle spoke of had not been carried out in his time or in his district. Mr. Kettle said lie was making no reflections whatever on Mr. Hull. He only said 'that the practice had existed, and be had no doubt that the Minister or the Department would make inquiries into the matter. .Mr. Mays added that Mr. Hull had not been troubled at all with the bringing of diseased cows to sale yards for inspection during the past jew or two.