DIPPING OF SHEEP

Otago Witness, Issue 3519, 23 August 1921, Page 10

DIPPING OF SHEEP

LIABILITY AS TO CROSSBREDS. AN APPEAL CASE. Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim on Wednesday afternoon, Sidney M. Taylor, inspector of stock, Oamaru, appealed against the decision of Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., at Oamaru, in a case in which he proceeded against .John A. Sutton, of Waitangi Station, Ilakataramea, for failing to dip certain sheep between January 1 and April 30, 1920, the said owner not having obtained from ari inspector, in terms of A t any extension of time for dipping the sheep. ' B. Adams appeared for the appellant, and Mr C. G. White for the resppndent, who, at the hearing of the original case, had been convicted and ordered to pay £2B Is 6d. with costs (9s), and witnesses’ expenses (£2 13sl. It was proved at the hearing at Oamaru that the defendant was the owner of 2246 crossbred sheep and 11,251 halfbred sheep, which he failed to dip. It was further proved that halfbred sheen were a distinctive _ breed with definite characteristics and quite distinct from crossbreds. The magistrate determined that the information did not apply to the 11.251 halfbreds. A unanimous body of evidence—that of sheep farmers, wool classers, and stock agents—showed that the term crossbred had always been used with regard to a distinct class of sheep, which had a particular kind of coarse, fairly long wool, and included sheep exclusive of the distinctive breeds of sheep. The evidence was . that half bred was a distinctive breed, with definite characteristics and a firm, short wool. It. was recognised as a separate class for show purposes and for wool classing, and had always been regarded in the same way in the sheep-farming industry. A sale of halfbreds was not satisfied by the delivery of crossbreds, nor conversely would the sale of crossbreds be completed by the delivery of halfbreds. Crossbred had an established and well defined meaning before the enactment o.f the Stock Act, and if the Legislature had intended the term to have other than this meaning in the Act it should have indicated such intention. Further, if ihe Legislature had intended all sheep other than merinos to be dipped it would have been a simple matter to have said so. Mr Adams, in addessing the court, contended that the term crossbred was not to be read in any technical sense but was intended to include any case of crossbreeding. The point- was whether the magistrate was right in holding that these halfbred sheep were not crossbred sheep within the meaning of the Act. Hi' Honor: Is that a Question of law at all? It. is not a question of fact? Mr Adams: My contention is that it is not open to the magistrate to determine the meaning of the statute on verbal eviHis Honor: These terms have to be construed in the way in which thev are understood by those engaged in the industry. They cannot be read in the sense applied to them by a man who knows nothing about sheep, and who goes to the dictionary for their meaning. Mr Adams remarked that it was unfortunate in this case a finding on fact had been obtained as (he department did not have sufficient warning to enable it to adduce (he necessary evidence on the other side His Honor, in holding against the appellant, said the legislation must be taken to have used the term crossbred in the sense in which it would be understood by those engaged in the sheep industry. ‘The magistrate had come to the conclusion that hn'fbred sheep were not understood in the industry as being included in the term crossbred sheep, and it seemed to him on (his finding that it was impossible to say that the magistrate was wrong. The appeal wn= dismissed, the respondent being allowed £5 5s costs.