Branding Act.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir,— ln your issue of the 10th you report the case of Beauchamp v.. Erskine re alteration of ear marks,, and there is some evidence given by one of the witnesses that requires; some explanation. The Inspector of Sheep (he does not say that he is Registrar of Brands also) says that Mr Erskine was using a certain brand by permission of the Department, JL should very much like to know how the Department can give permission to use any brand that is not registered,and unless there has been some amendment to the Act of 1880 to that effect I consider that the Department has been guilty of a very grave and dangerous error, and one which may be the cause of endless litigation. The Act of 1880 is a compulsory Act, like an Act of this sort should be, and does not give tha. Inspector of Sheep or the Registrar of Brands any license whatever, and the sooner that the Department (as they like to bestyled) reads marks and inwardly digests this fact, the safer it will be for all us small stock-owners. I am, &c., —v ; Brand.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PGAMA18911030.2.12.1
Bibliographic details
Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 2, Issue 81, 30 October 1891, Page 2
Word Count
194Branding Act. Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 2, Issue 81, 30 October 1891, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in