BULL FOUND ON MAIN ROAD

Taranaki Daily News, 9 June 1930, Page 15

BULL FOUND ON MAIN ROAD

OWNER NOT RESPONSIBLE HAD GIVEN BAILMENT TO NATIVE. SUPREME COURT ALLOWS APPEAL Holding that the bull had been bailed to Wi Kupe, a Native, who was the person responsible if an offence had been committed, Mr. Justice Blair at New Plymouth on Saturday sustained the appeal of William R. Wright against his conviction by the magistrate for allowing the animal to wander out of control °on the Main South Road, near Rahotu,' on November 28. In applying for costs Mr. P. O’Dea suggested that upon the facts the case should never have been brought against Wright. -. In apposing the application on behalf of the Egmont County Council and Frederick Williams, the ranger concerned Mr. A. A. Bennett pointed out that wandering stock on the county roads had become an evil and the council had made efforts to stop it. Counsel suggested that until the case came into the lower court there had been a lack of candour on the part of Wright. His Honour said ho saw no reason to make an exception to the rule in this instance and therefore would not allow costs. When the hearing was resumed on Saturday Wright was cross-examined. He said that Williams did not say at the time that he intended to issue a summons. He did not know whether to expect one and had treated the matter as a joke. Mr. Bennett: You wrote to the Press on the matter on December 17? Wright: Yes; I was feeling very sore over the matter. He sail that to the best of his belief his statements were true. He was not in the habit of making untrue statements. Counsel: In the lower court you said that in your letter you made use of some wrong statements under “poetic license?” “THAT WAS A JOKE.” Wright: Oh, that was a joke on the day of the hearing. the magistrate evidently don’t understand jokes. When counsel recalled that hr the lower court Wright had sworn he did not tell the ranger -the young bull was not his Wright reaffirmed that he did not then know to whom it belonged. A short time before he had sold it to Greenway, but it had been left to him to photograph. He had . let Kupe have the bull to Assist in driving the other home. There was the possibility that Greenway might have met it as it -was being driven back and taken charge of it.

Counsel: Without any authority from you? t Wright said' he had not troubled about that because he did not know whether the bull had been resold by Greenway. When asked by the ranger whose bull it was he said, “I don’t know. It’s not mine.” He had accompanied Kupe three miles on his way. Counsel: Didn’t you say in the lower court that you went about four miles and up the Parihaka Road. Wright: No. It’s a pity your client did not swear to what he said in the lower court.

His Honour pointed out that they would get along much more quickly if Wright just answered the questions. Mr. Bennett: Then do you suggest the magistrate’s notes of evidence are not correct?

Wright: I don’t know. I am not responsible for the magistrate’s notes. Counsel asked whether, if the older hull driven by Kupe stopped, it would be expected the younger one would go on.

Wright: I don’t know. I’ve never driven him. His Honour: He was not in the bull’s confidence, Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Bennett: But he is a breeder of bulls and should know how to drive young, bulls. His Honour: I suppose these bulls have different temperaments. Kupe’s hull evidently knew he was being taken away from his home and brothers for keeps and he didn’t want to go. On the return journey .the others knew they were on their way home again and perhaps The younger' one was in a hurry to get there for his own private reasons. x Mr. Bennett: The magistrate’s notes report that you said in the lower court that you pointed out Kupe to Williams when he was only eight chains away. Wright: I never said it. It could not have been that far as there was a bend in the road. It was 4y 2 chains. I am not responsible for the magistrate’s notes.

KUPE NEARLY A MILE AWAY. Here was' interposed evidence for the County Council by James George Wib HamsOn, driver "of :; the service car in which Williams was travelling. He recalled that Williams alighted from the bus two miles past Rahotu and half a mile from Wright’s place. "At that ■point one could see a quarter of a mile further along the road. No one wds in sight except a boy. Williamson eaid lie drove bn towards New Plymouth: Nine-tenths of a mile further on he passed Kupe driving the other bull. He had since measured the distance by speedometer. Mr. O’Dea: You are not very interested in this case? —Oh, no. His Honour: He is probably more amused. •Counsel: Yes, I believe he, is, from iho look of him. Counsel: When did you put the speedometer on the- points?—Yesterday. That is six or seven months after the bull was found. Gan you remember the points mentioned that long?—Oh, yes. Mr. Bennett said this evidence concluded his case. His Honour said the only additional witness he wanted to hear on the other .side was Wiremu Kupe. Kupe then confirmed Mr. O’Dea’s opening statement that after driving his own bull homo ihe had returned to- , wards Wright’s with the. two bulls lent' him to facilitate driving the other one. One of these bulls had been sold by Wright to a man named Greenway but had not been delivered. The other one was Wright’s and was valued at 70 guineas. Kiipc took particular care of this one on the way back to Wright’s. He stopped to. speak to a man and the other bull “lie see a cow” and ,jan Whj'WWtS: told, him tf ■■y'as |( going ; .i^ i siipwns fright :he Ji • b.«6rd Tl '!

told the. ranger not to do that as ho was in charge of the bull. ; To Mr. -Bennett: He had bought the • bull from Wright for £7. He denied t having said he saw Williams with the - other bull at Wright’s gate when 8% chains away. He was three chains ' away,: or it might .have been more. He ■ told Williams that he drove the other ; bull too slowly and- that he was' tc- > sponsible for the bull Williams took in i charge. He did not say to 'Williams, “That’s mv job.” In reply to the judge Mr. Bennett ■ admitted the point of bailment of ihe bull to Kupe raised by Mr. O’Dea and said that in view of that he could not support the conviction under the bylaw, but lie maintained jt could be susi tained under the Police Offences Act. His Honour said that in his view the facts established that the two bulls on the journey home to Wright’s had : been bailed to Kupe and were in his , charge. The arrangement between Wright and Kupe was not that of mas- > ter and servant but that of bailor and , bailee. The fact was that one of the two bulls lent by Wright had strayed in - front of Kupe on its way home. Kupe - had stayed behind with the older animal with the result that the young bull had got nearly a mile ahead. Wright ; could not be held responsible for the sins and • omissions of Kupe. The position' Was that the care, custody and control of the two bulls had ■ entirely Ibft Wright and passed to . Kupe as bailee' for d certain purpose. It would be stretching the law too far ■ to make Wright' responsible. If there were any- offence —and his Honour’ did • not say there had been —it had been committed by Kupe. How could it be said that Wright k . knpw s}at going BtPP'fPP. '7.W i .la^d'..fefc. eptligr ; g I I'&ii.' .dthki) Itl ■t-’