LORRY AND DRIVEN CATTLE

Taranaki Daily News, 4 December 1930, Page 2

LORRY AND DRIVEN CATTLE

TROVER’S ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION. INCIDENT NEAR OAKURA. Unlawful obstruction of traffic on the South Road while droving cattle near Oakura on October 29 • was alleged against John Wood before Mr. R. W. 'fate, S.M., at New Plymouth yesterday. The magistrate reserved his decision. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appe ired for Robert Aroa, county inspector, the informant, and Mr. C. H. Weston represented Wood, who pleaded not guilty. Explaining the, circumstances, Mr. Quilliam said W. A. Thomas, a farmer, and a member of the Taranaki County Council, was driving towards New Plymouth in his motor-lorry about H a.m. About one mile on the Okaio side \f Ohkura he came up to a mob of cattle driven by Wood. There was a leading dog in front and a dog behind. No effort was made by Wood to assist the lorry to get through, and Thomas tried to get through the cattle three times at least, but had to move back as they were so tightly packed. While the leading dog was holding them in front Wood was forcing them on from behind. This went on for about 20 chains, and at last Thomas became very angry and spoke to Wood about the matter, saying he would report him. Unfortunately, Wnod when asked his name, said he was “Tom Mix.” He-said he had been going to help Thomas through, but would not do so now, and he added something about some motorists thinking they owned the road. Thomas again tried to get through and eventually did so after the leading dog had been called off—he thought, by sVood. He had to traverse 10 or 15 chains before passing through. The motor regulations appeared to deal with the matter one-sidedly, said counsel. Regulation 11, paragraph 6, detailed the duties ot motorists ill passing animals on the road, but the duties of drovers were not mentioned. He maintained there was an obligation on drovers to assist motorists to get through "driven cattle. , . . . “It’s the worst case I’ve met with in the 12 or 13 years I’ye driven a car,” said William Alfred Thomas. “It was so bad that I felt if my duty to bring it lip at the council table. Had I not been a member of a local body I don’t think I would have said much about it.” Before commencing to cross-examine, Mr. Westbn said his interpretation of the section was that Mr. Quilliam had to prove mens rea to succeed. The regulations threw no responsibility at all on drovers to help motorists. Of course, some of them did do so, but were .under no obligation to do so. The obligation was entirely on the motorist. The magistrate observed that the purpose of the regulations was to regulate the conduct of motorists, and not that of drovers. ■

Mr. Weston maintained that even on Thomas’, evidence there was no indication of wilful obstruction. The magistrate said it would be difficult for him to find that in view of the account given of Woods’ remarks and attitude! In reply to Mr. Weston Thomas denied having stopped his 3ar and got out before lie attempted to get through the cattle. He had not asked Wood to call his leading dog off before he tried to get through. He kept his lorry practically in the centre of the road. _ There were 120 cattle spread over a distance of from one to two chains. / “Without saying a word to the drover, you proceeded to drive a ton lorry into a mob of cattle,” said Mr. Weston. “Can you say what consideration you, as a motorist, gave the drover?” “Every consideration,” said Thomas. He had been driving a car about 13 years and had never before had a complaint from a drover. “Can you say- that?” he asked Mr. Weston. _ .. .. .. ~ Mr. Quilliam maintained the regulations did. not make it obligatory on motorists to speak to drovers before passing tattle. Thomas said that after his third attempt he stopped and got out. “And what did you say?” asked. Mr. Weston. . . “I was a bit wild.” ; ■ ■ • “You lost your temper?” “Oh, no. i don’t lose my temper as easily as that. I was a bit wild.” He denied having threatened, to “put him up,” or/to put anyone else up. “Absolutely, nd,” he said. He had not made that threat to a girl employed by a certain farmer. He did n<jt even know who the girl referred to was. “Wood will say you killed a roan cow,” said Mr. Weston. “It died the next inorning.” “Well, all I can say is that it must have been very near death,” observed Thomas. He did not remember having hit a cow, though a calf hit him. To Mr. Quilliam: He had received no notice of a claim against him for a dead cow. The other side of the case was the subject of evidence by Wood. He said the mob contained 120 head of mixed cattle. By the time he caught up- to Thomas, and before the lorry was driven into the mob, Thomas was out of his lorry. • “Look here, young man, I’m going to report you,’ ’he said. “Yes,” said Wood.

Thomas told him he had no business to hold the mob in front with a leading dog. “I know best how to work my dogs,” replied Wood. He added that he would help Thomas through, but the latter “went crook.” Wood went on ahead and put a dog on the right-hand side, this making a track for the lorry. Instead of following witness Thomas kept to the tar. Later Thomas asked him his name. Having lived in the district a long time and known Thomas, witness did not think he was serious, so he said, “My name’s Tom Mix.” z Eventually the lorry went through quite easily. It hit several cattle and the left front mudguard was bent. Witness noticed this damage when he rode up past the lorry. Thomas was not amongst the cattle more than two or three minutes. “Has Thomas ever previously driven through mobs of cattle in your charge?” asked Mr. Weston. “Yes.” “And was there any trouble bn those occasions?” “Not trouble. But he has gone crook at ■ me.” In the course of questioning by Mr. Quilliam and the magistrate, Wood said Thomas had kept to the centre of the road because, being in a temper, he was not looking where he was going; instead, he was watching and talking to witness at tjie side of the lorry. Later he saw the track and moved over into it. John Brough, drovCr, having heard the evidence, considered Wood had done very well with the class of cattld bfjing handled. In out Of JO motorists themselves bunched the cattle by blowing their horns. A good driver threaded his own" way through a. mob, .though a drover would help if asked. A [drover would have to be on the side of .his cattle all the time to make a passage for all motorists. There was a car about every three minutes. “You have had experience of Thomas before,” said Mr. Weston. “Can you say he is a good driver?” “I think he is a bit rash amongst cattle, witness said. Alphonso Wood, employed by Newton King, Ltd., was about to give similar evidence about droving when Mr. Quilliam protested that such evidence, was

irrelevant. “I am prepared to concede this,” h© said, “if Wood’s account of the factfe is correct, this information must fail.” The magistrate said it could be understood that drovers had trouble with unreasonable motorists. To suggest that Wood deliberately obstructed Thomas was too absurd, said Mr. Weston. Drovers had no desire to keep motor vehicles near their cattle longer than necessary. Mr. Tate said it was difficult to reconcile the two stories. He would go through the evidence more closely before finding the facts.