THE COURTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 7682, 16 January 1886, Page 3

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO. Wednesday, January 14. (Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) MACKAY V. DRUMMOND* This was an appeal under the Justices of the Peace Act against a conviction. The appellant was convicted under section 23 of •• The Sheep Act, 1878.” An order under that section had been duly served by the Sheep Inspector on the appellant, requiring him to effectually clean a mixed flock of sheep numbering about 18 400 within sir months. The information charged the appellant that he, having beenserved with such order, had failed to clean tbe sheep within the period of six months, and had farther failed to clean them within a period of three months next followiog. It was proved that the sheep had not been cleaned, and that within the nine months from the date of the order some sheep had been born on the station and others purchased, so that the flock then numbered 19,000. The Magistrate ordered the appellant to pay a penalty of 3d for each of the 19,000 sheep. Mr Bell for the appellant. The penalty for 19,000 sheep was an excess. Sec. tion 23 requires the owner to clean such sheep as are named in the notice, not others which may be bought on the place after the order. It is admitted that the definition of infected sheep in section 5 is against us. Secondly tbe information does not charge ua with any offence under the Act. Two offences arc created by section 23, first, not making reasonable exertions to clean within the first six months ; and second, having after nine months sheep which in the Inspector’s opinion are infected. The information clearly does not charge the first offence, and can only by implication be said to charge tbe second offence. Mr Travers for the respondent. The whole flock was infected, and the conviction was correct. (He was stopped on this point.) Tbe information sufficiently charges tbe second offence created by section 23 j for it states that the defendant failed to clean tbe sheep, and, as tbe Sheep Inspector laid the informstion, it is plain that, in bis opinion, they were infected, Mr Justice Richmond : The objection that the conviction is for 19,000 sheep, while the order is to clean the ijock of about 18.400, cannot be sustained. The Inspector was satisfied that the flock was infected, and gave the appellant notice to clean it ; and tbe sheep for which tbe appellant was fined were all infected sheep, and all the flock which be had been ordered to clean. I will Cake time to consider the second objection. SIDDLK3 V. LEACH Appeal from Jibe decision of tbe Resident Magistrate at Napier dismissing an information against the respondent under section 159 of tbe Licensing Act, 1881, for selliog beer without a license. The respondent had for some time bad a license for a. public bouse at Ormondville, but had lost it through no fault of bis own. He continued to occupy the public bouse, and on the 2nd November tbe informant, a constable, visited the bouse, aud the respondent supplied him with two gallons of beer, which be drew out of an eighteen-gallon keg in the room. On the bearing of the information the respondent produced an authority from W. Robjohns, brewer, at Napier, licensed under the Beer Duty Act, 1880, to act as his agent at Ormondville for tbe sale of beer. The Magistrate held that, as section 7 of the Beer Duty Act exempted the holder of a brewer’s license from taking oat a wholesale license, a brewer could sell beer from bis brewery in quantities not less than two gallons in any part of the Colony. Mr Bell for the appellant : Tbe holder of a brewer’s license may sell in bulk in any part of the Colony, but without a wholesale license under the Licensing Act be cannot sdl beer drawn out of a cask. Counsel referred to the definition of “cask” and to sections 6,7, 12, 24, 25, §l, and 32 of tbe Beer Duty Act. He was then stopped. The respondent did not appear. Mr Justice Richmond : I am satisfied that the policy of the Beer Duty Act is against sales by the holder of a license under that Act other than sales of beer in casks. Section 31 provides that all beer shall be sold only in casks of such sizes as may be prescribed, and 1 think the sale of part of the contents of a cask is not authorised by the license. Tbe case must be remitted tq the Magistrate with a direction accordingly. Appeal allowed with costs. IN EE BESS. This was a motion to set aside an order made by tbe Registrar at Gisborne, confirming a resolution of creditors agreeing to a composition and release in the estate of W. L. Rees. Mr MoDougall appeared for the petitioning creditors .who had voted against the resolution, Mr Travers, for the Official Assignee, objected that, as no order had even been drawn up, there was nothing to review. After argument, Mr Justice Richmond said : My opinion is that there is nothing at present to discharge. I should be at a loss to draw up an order if I made one, because there is no proceeding on tbe register at all. I do Dot doubt that thove ia power In a Judge of tbe Supreme Court to review a proceeding, even if it Is only the signing of a deed, if it is properly au appeal. But the proceedings here have not gone so far ; it may bt they are abandoned. If the order is not drawn up in a reasonable time it ia abandoned. Tbe creditors or tbe Registrar must get a judicial determination within a reasonable time, and then the petitioning creditors can come here. Butat the present time there is nothing to strike at. As to the creditors stealing a march, nothing of tbe kind would bo allowed, and the Csurt may enlarge the time if necessary. I think the parties are really jumping before they get to the stile. Tbe order must be drawn up and a deed presented for confirmation, and then the petitioning creditors will be in time to complain not only of the terms of the deed but of the order for a composition. It would be a sufficient answer to the objection that the parties were too late ; that they bad taken the first opportunity to dispute the matter. I am not disposed to" give any coats against these complainants. I bave drawn no conclusive opinioD on the merits of the case, but a stranger proposition of settling a bankruptcy I never heard of. It is a greater crudity than I ever saw, coming even from Gisborne, -But X would say now that I think it very probable that the parties will do well to take a proper deed of inspectorship. It looks as if the creditors expected nothing except from the exertions of the bankrupt. Creditors do not generally give up £40,000 without reason, and perhaps the minority bad better consent to it. But at present there is, at all events, nothing to discharge. Tbe Deputy Assignee must be told that be has no right to take a side, but he is right in formally asking that tbe resolution, if it is carried, be affirmed. The application is dismissed without costs, tbe Assignee’s costs to be paid out of tbe estate. .■