WANDERING CATTLE.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 June 1916, Page 7

WANDERING CATTLE.

A CONVICTION WITHOUT COSTS.: F. H. Jellyman was yesterday charged at the Magistrate's Court with allowing a steer to be at large on a public road, to wit, the Carrington Road. Sub-Inspector Fouhy prosecuted and Mr. A. E. J/iwrey (Govett and Quilliam) appeared for defendant, and pleaded guilty. Mr. I awrey said that this was the same steer in respect of wliieh a charge of eri.elty was heard against the same defendant last Thursday From the evidence given then he submitted that defendant had no other course but to leave the steer on the road. It was riot a case of negligence or a desire to take advantage of the feed on the roadside and he thought, under the circumstances, a conviction without a fine would meet the ease. Mr. Lawrey said that it seemed that the case was brought by the police in order to get even with defendant over I the other charge. If the intention had' been to prosecute, the case should have been brought with the other charge, whereas the information was laid the day after the previous information was dismissed. Sub-Inspector Fouhy said it was not an attempt to get at Mr. Jellyman in any way. The first information was laid in consequence of a complaint from the S.P.C.A. This charge was an independent one. and no doubt had a conviction been recorded on that charge the present case would probably not have ■ been broughc. as there was no wish to duplicate the charges. The present charge could not be treated as an alternative. It was not n ease of leaving the beast there for a day or two, as in case of necessity, but of leaving it to feed on the road for a'.iout two weeks. The Magistrate said that the facts were the same as in lust week's case, where the defendant was charged with leaving the animal without proper food, shelter, or moisture. The evidence, especially that of the Stock Inspector which was. uncontradicted, proved con clusively that the charge' was groundless. The Magistrate continued that he was entitled ro consider the evidence in the former case. The animal was suffering from a swollen leg. and was driven from a paddock on to the highway, where the swelling buvot. The defendant then hao three alternatives. If he had driven the animal on when it was in such pain lie would have laid himself open to a charge of-cruelty, and if he had slaughtered the animal he could have been prosecuted for slaughtering it on a highway, so thai, his third course, to leave it where it was, with food, shelter and moisture, was the only humanitarian course he could have - adopted. He could not help thinking that it was a pity the information was laid, but the defendant had pleaded guilty to a breach of the by-laws, and would be convicted, but there would be no penalty and no costs Sub-Inspector Fouhy remarked that the Government Inspector had not been in the district during the time the beast was on the road.'