BULL SEIZED ON ROADWAY

Taranaki Daily News, 7 June 1930, Page 11

BULL SEIZED ON ROADWAY

APPEAL UPON BY-LAW CASE

COUNTY RANGER TAKES CONTROL

“IT IS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.”

Was the bull wandering and, if it was, who was responsible? That question has to be decided by Mr. Justice Blair on a general appeal on fact and law by- William R. Wright against his conviction by the magistrate at Opunake. ' The hearing commenced in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday and will be continued this mornina. Frederick Williams, ranger to’ the Egmont County Council, appeared to answer the appeal. On his behalf Mr. A. A. Bennett explained that Wright farmed at Rahotu. On November 28 Williams was travelling in a service ear from Opunake towards New Plymouth when, at about 3.15 p.m., he saw a young bull apparently wandering at large on the Main South Road. There , was no person in sight except a young boy. This was about half a mile from Wright’s gate. At the. request of Williams the car was stopped and he alighted and took charge of the bull. Believing it to be ! Wright’s, he drove it towards the farm. When 20 chains along the way the animal took fright at a passing car and ran down the Te Popo Road, whence it was recovered and driven towards Wright’s place. Within -five chains of the "gate Wright came up and immediately asked Williams where the other one was. “I know nothing about tinother one/’ replied Williams. “Whose is this one?” Wright said ‘Mine,” and taking possession he placed the bull in his ’paddock. About ten minutes later Wi Kupe, an elderly native;'arrived with an older bulj. This was aUb. taken by Wright in a ’paddqck, ' Counsel said'that J. G.,, Williamson, the driver of’ the service' car; would corroborate Williams’ evidence regarding the finding of the bull, and would say that at-that time, he could see a quarter of a mile ahead in the direction from which Kupe was said to be coming. No one was in sight, however, and moreover, Williamson did not pass Kupe driving the old hull until he had gone nine-ten ths of a mile beyond the -place where the other bull was taken in charge.

WRIGHT "TOOK POSSESSION.’ 1 ’ Tho ' ease for the respondent ’was based on the following contentions; That Wright claimed the younger bull and took possession; that while Wright and Williams were conversing Kupe arrived - wltli the older bull. It followed that at the time Willidms Look charge of the younger bull Kupe must have been at least a mile behind, After recalling that the magistrate had convicted Wright under the by-law, counsel submitted that a prima -facie "case had been made out that Wright claimed the younger bull as his and that it was so far ahead of Kupe that it was obviously at large and without proper guidance. He did not propose to anticipate Hie defence, except to make the following propositions (1) That mens rea was not a necessary ingredient of tho offence; (2) that even if mens rea were a necessary ingredient tho surrounding circumstances showed that Wright was responsible in law for Kupe’s neglect. He submitted that guilty knowledge or "permitting” as far as Wright was concerned, could lie inferred by the court when the full facts had been placed before it.

Williams was cross-examined by Mr. ’P, O’Dea, who appeared for Wright.

Mr. O’Dea: What are the terms o: your engagement by the county coun cil?

Williams;. I get £2 a week and hal the fines.

That makes you very diligent?—No; I am very fair to the public. His Honour: Why should he not be diligent, Mr. O’Dea? Mr. O’Dea (to Williams): And you would catch quite a lot more if people did not use the telephone to say you were coming? —Yes, but, I am always fair. 1 •

If you had known Kupe had borrowed the two’ bulls to help him along the road with a third would you have prosecuted?—Most likely I would not. To. Mr. Bennett: The question whether the owners of stock should be prosecuted was decided by the county solicitor. KUPE WAS IN CHARGE. The circumstances from Wright’s point of view were explained by Mr. O’Dea. Kupe, he said, had purchased a bull from Wright, who had ’allowed him to take two other bulls to facilitate driving eight miles to Kupe’s farm. When the two were being returned to Wright’s place by Kupe one g'ot a little ahead of the other and was taken in charge by the ranger. The bull was in the custody of Kupe and Wright said he had nothing to do with it. His Honour: I was wondering what all the fuss was about. I thought it must have been a very valuable bull. Mr. O’Dea: Mr. Wright is a breeder of pedigree Friesians. His Honour observed that the Magistrate had made the fine £5 Is. He presumed that was for the purposes of appeal. Mr. Bennett: The magistrate was about to make the fine £l, but Mr. O’Dea asked that it should be increased.

Mr. Bennett was granted the right to call further evidence ibis morning as ■some of his witnesses were not available yesterday afternoon, Mr. O’Dea said that when Kupe first, tried to get his purchase home it would not go. Eventually Wright said he could take the two other bulls-'for company. He himself went three miles up the road to assist in driving theni and then turned back. Kupe took his own bull to his farm, before coming back with the other two. The older bull was fat and could not keep pace with the other, which sometimes got ahead and out of sight, but never very far. It was this bull that the ranger took*, charge' of. His Honours You are claiming that' the bull was in the care, custody And' control of Kupe and not Wright?' Mr. O’Dea: That is precisely • our case. A second point is that the bull was not “wandering at large.” Counsel maintained that Wright had not permitted or allowed the bull to wander as it was hot in his custody. Wright in evidence said that while he .was talking to Williams Kupe arrived. He? ugpjlgred ohd 'pf'"’yhtir ■’‘cMflO. ' Kupe' re*

plied: “That is my job. That is not .; Wright’s job.” • ’ “Is there anything else you would li'kb to say ?” asked Mr. O’Dea, when Wrighti had concluded his evidence. •- “Only that I am taking this appeal from the point of view of public policy, your Honour,” said Wright. “It is in restraint of trade. Ae I told the magistrate, if this sort of thing is allowed? no one will be able to drive two bulls along a there are two men' in charge.”