BY-LAW UNREASONABLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19939, 7 May 1928, Page 11

BY-LAW UNREASONABLE.

RESTRICTION OF DROVING.

OTAHUHU BOROUGH CASE.

DECISION OF MAGISTRATE. The by-law of the Otahuhu Borough Council, prohibiting a drover from taking charge of more than 30 head of loose cattle through the town, was held unreasonable by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., in a reserved judgment given on Saturday. The case was one in which a drover, Robert Sanders, was prosecuted by, the Borough Council for breach of the by-law, informations being also laid against other drovers. Mr. Ziman appeared for defendants and Mr. Wood for the council.

"On behalf of defendants," the magistrate staled, "Mr. Ziman attacked the bylaw on two grounds, viz., that there is no,power for the Borough Council to make such a by-law and that the by-law is unreasonable. As to the first point, the law is so obviously directed to the good government of the borough that I do not think there is any doubt the council has power to make such a by-law. The second point presents difficulties. The by-law in question does not affect merely the Borough of Otahuhu, but is of importance to the whole province of Auckland. "Otahuhu, with its immediate surrounding districts, is the centre of the freezing industry, abattoirs and allied works for the city of Auckland and large numbers of cattle arrive in or pass through the borough from districts extending over a large part of the North Island. It is complained that, if on arrival at the confines of the borough, these mobs of cattle are subjected to the effect of an unnecessarily harassing by-law, an industry of the utmost importance to the Dominion, the Auckland Province, and the one industry on which the prosperity of the borough itself depends, will be injured."

Evidence for tho informant, continued the magistrate, made it clear that some further provision was necessary for the protection of the interests of the borough, but the evidence hardly touched the point on which the by-law was attacked. On the other hand, a number of witnesses, representing farming, freezing works and droving interests, gave evidence that the by-law was unreasonable in its effects. They were unanimous in their opinion that it was not practicable to stop a large mob, the units of which had travelled a long distance together, at the confines of the borough and there to break it into mobs of 30.

The effect of the evidence was to showthat, in order to protect the interests of the borough when large mobs of cattle were passing through, some further provision would have to be made than was necessary when bringing the mobs through country districts. However, it was shown the arbitrary requirements of one drover and equipment to every 30 head regardless of the size of the mob and other circumstances was unreasonable and unworkable. As there was no answer to this, there was no other course than to hold the by-law unreasonable. The informations would be dismissed.