A DRIVER'S LIABILITY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 122, 16 October 1914, Page 3

A DRIVER'S LIABILITY.

DEAD BBAST ON ROAD. CASE DISMISSED.

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr A. Crooke, S.M., George Hendrick was called upon to answer an information laid by the clerk of the Taranaki County Council far leaving a dead beast on the Tariki road, near Ratapiko. Mr B. Quilliam appeared for the County Clerk, and Mr Johnstone for the defendant, who p'.eaed not guilty. In opening the case, Mr Quilliam said the practice of leaving dead beasts on the road was of frequent occurrence, and the prosecution was instituted to check this practice. In the present case, the beast was left dead on the road and created a great litiiaance to ths settlers, having eventually to be buried by County.

Evidence was given by Qen-ge Eraser as to the beast bein~ \ 6 ft on the road. John Moratti also testified to seeing defendant dnvo eomt _ opr cattle, br_ <on g] n „ to eft (; !i0 . « road. Defendant said he had left oeast on the road, and told witness he I could look after it if he liked and perhaps would be able to buy it cheap. Subsequently defendant said Mr Fraser would look after it. The beast would not travel even as far as Mr Fraser's, a distance -of 25 chains. Witness saw the animal next morning on the roadside, and made a eornplaint to the foreman.

To 1113 Worship: When he saw the beast in the morning it was standing, looking very miserable and not feeding. Joseph Bieaick gave confirmatory evidence, adding that he helped to bury the beaßt, which was in a very decomposed state, seven or eight days after he saw it on the road.

Matthew J. Jones, county foreman, stated that at the request of Mr. Moratti he helped to bury the beast. His Worship pointed out that there was no evidence of an animal being left dead on the road. It must be proved that defendant left a dead animal on the road, whereas it had only been proved that he left a live animal on the road.

_ Mr. Quilliam submitted -tihat it was tion of the 'Act was to prevent an animal being left on the road in such a state that it was likely to be, no care being taken to ascertain whether it was alive or dead.

His Worship: The defendant did not know the animal was dead.

Mr. Quilliam: He knew it was likely to die, and took no steps to ascertain whether it lived or not, and he left it there.

His Worship: You must satisfy me that defendant knew the beast was dead.

Mr. Quilliam submitted that t was defendant's duty to remove the beast whether alivo or dead, and not allow it to remain unremoved. Mr. Johnstone eaid'Uhat he had intended to raise the objection taken by his Worship, but he relied on defendant's evidence that the beast left on the road was not as he accounted for his proper number When putting the drove into the paddock. Wm. Geo. Hendrick, the defendant, said he was a drover. On the day in question "he was driving 100 cattle from Stratford to Tarata. lie left one at Keiglitley's and another at Stephenson's. Saw Stephenson subsequently, and was told that the beast left in his paddock had got away. When gathering his mob after leaving Moratti's he noticed the calf in question and told Moratti he (witness) did not know whether it was his calf or not. Next morning he counted his mob and found the number correct. After returning from Tarata the next afternoon he saw the calf feeding opposite Moratti's. If it had been his beast he would have put it either in Moratti's paddock or in Biesick's. His Worship held that there was no evidence that defendant left a dead beast on the road, and therefore the case would be diambissed.

In reply to Mr. Qiulliam, his Worship said he would state a case if asked to do so. As to the evidence of ownership of the beast the evidence was contradictory. The case was dismissed, with costs £2 7s.