THE RIDDIFORD-COLLIER APPEAL UPHELD.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1289, 12 November 1896, Page 33

THE RIDDIFORD-COLLIER APPEAL UPHELD.

The appeal of E. J. Eiddiford against the decision of the Lower Court convicting him under the Dairy Regulations for neglect to lime-whitewash his dairy was argued at a Banco sitting of the Supreme Court on Saturday, the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Edwards presiding. Mr Bunny appeared for the appellant, and Mr Wilford for the respondent, J. H. Collier, the Dairy Inspector. In giving judgment, Sir James Prendergast said that the offence charged against Mr Eiddiford arose under the first half of regulation 27—that is, using a cowshed not constructed in a proper way, but he did not find any authority for that in the Statute, or that the Legislature authorised the Governor to issue any regulation about construction. Except in any special matter such as drainage, no power was given regarding construction in the regulations, and as the regulation under review was for the construction of a dctiry, he thought it was ultra vires. It was contended that it really came ■within the power of regulating the cleansing of the dairy or cowshed, but he held that it did not. It might be that the latter part providing that there should be a certain kind of cleansing—namely, ■whitewashing—that that came within power to regulate the cleansing, though he supposed lime whitewashing was not really for the purpose of cleansing, but for sanitary purposes, which meant something more than cleansing. This was a very necessary and proper thing in a cowshed, but the Act did not say that they might make regulations for the purpose of providing against infection. Moreover, it was provided that the cleansing was to be done to the satisfaction of the inspector, but it was left vague and uncertain as to what was to be done. The regulation was too vague, and persons endeavouring to comply with it would not knovv what to do. The appeal was therefore allowed. Judge Edwards concurred in the ruling of the Chief Justice. The Court declined to allow costs, as the inspector is a public officer who did no more than endeavour to carry out the regulations.