Breach of the Stock Act.

Opunake Times, Volume V, Issue 240, 22 December 1896, Page 3

Breach of the Stock Act.

Mr Allen, S.M,, at Blenheim delivered judgment in the case Moore v. Derbyshire as follows : The evidence in this case clearly ■hows that the defendant tool-' posseslion of a flock of sheep found straying and at large on a public road, and in his capacity* of impounder drove the said flock of sheep, starting before 4 o'clock in the morning, to the public Sound in Blenheim. There is no oubthe has committed a breach of Motion 58 of the Stock Act, 1893. It has been proved that he drove them as aforesaid without any permit from any of the persons named in section 58, and as amended by the Act of 1895. Mr Sinclair contends that as an impounder be is not bound by the provision of the said section 52. I cannot agree with the contention. "The Stock Act has not repealed the provisions of the Impounding Act, 1884; neither apparently are the provisions of section 17 of the last named Act contrary to the provisions of section 58 of the Stock Act. The impounding Aot provides that inter alia a person authorised by a local authority may impound cattle which shall at any time of the day or night be found wandering at large. Then paragraph 29 of the same section provides for cases where the cattle are to found at large between sunset and sunrise. The impounder may in such cases place such cattle in any stable, yard, or enclosure during the night, and remove the same as soon as conveniently may be after sunrise to the nearest pound ; the expenses may be recovered from the owner. If it "was intended that impounders should be exempt from the provisions of section 68 of the Stock Act, then no doubt the exemption would have been set out. There is no evidence in this

case be was obliged to drive the sbeep within the limits of the Borough during the prescribed hours. He arrived at the pound at from a quarter to half past six, and long before the prescribed time.

His Worship fined defendant £5, the minimum fine under the Act, and 7s costs, allowing him till 29th December in which to pay the fine. * Mr Moore nndertook, as it was a first offence, to point out the circumstances of the case of the Stock Department, and ask tbem for a remission of the fine, as it was not possible to impose a lesser fine for a first offence.—Marlborough Express.