STOCK CARRIED AT NIGHT

Southland Times, Issue 23512, 19 May 1938, Page 7

STOCK CARRIED AT NIGHT

Motor-Lorry Driver Without Permit

WARNING ISSUED BY

MAGISTRATE

The need for lorry drivers to observe the law and secure permits for the carriage of stock after dark was emphasized by Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M., at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. He said that the Stock Act had been amended in 1930 because there had been numerous complaints that sheep were being stolen and farmers declared that the sheep were removed in lorries. The provision in the Act had been passed for the protection of farmers and it served to clear lorry drivers of suspicion. Peter James Houston, lorry driver, pleaded not guilty to a charge of carry-* ing 67 lambs by motor-lorry at Waikiwi after dark on April 27 without a permit. T Detective-Sergeant W. Thompson said that the defendant had driven a load of lambs from Makarewa to Ocean Beach without first obtaining a permit. He was stopped at Waikiwi at 6.15 p.m. and had then considerably more than 10 miles to travel. Detective T. Smith said he stopped the defendant who admitted that, he had no permit and said he did not know where to obtain one. The defendant, in evidence, said his employer had taken out a permit for him on that particular day, but the defendant missed him during the day s trips and did not get the permit from The defendant admitted that he had known his employer had obtained the permit that day. He had frequently obtained permits himself at the Wallacetown and Waianiwa stores, but he had not known where he could get a permit conveniently that evening. James Alexander Brown, the employer of the defendant, said he procured a permit for the defendant at the Lorneville Post Office about 4.30 o’clock on the day on which the charge was laid. He had expected to meet Houston on the road, but had missed him through taking a different route. Detective-Sergeant Thompson said there had been many complaints about sheep stealing and farmers claimed that the stock were being removed in lorries. There was no suggestion, however, that there was any dishonesty on the part of the defendant or his employer and the case was brought as a warning that the law must be observed. ~ , The witness Brown said he was a member of the Lorry Owners’ Association which had complained that the present system was inconvenient. The Government had been requested to pass an amendment to the Act permitting the owner of the stock to sign the permit for their carriage at night. The detective-sergeant said this suggestion appeared to be a good one. The Magistrate said he had to administer the law as it stood at present. In reply to a question, the witness said the defendant did not know there was a postmaster at Lorneville. The Magistrate said the employer should instruct his drivers where they could procure permits. The Act provided that permits could be obtained from a Justice of the Peace, a postmaster, an auctioneer, a constable or an inspector. There should always be someone in one of these classifications readily available in any district. The Act provided that the permit must be in the possession of the driver and it was not sufficient for it to be in the possession of the owner of the lorry. In the circumstances he proposed to act leniently and convict and fine defendant £l, but he issued a warning that future cases would be more severely dealt with. The Act provided for a fine not exceeding £5O.