SHEEPSKINS WITHOUT EARS

Taranaki Daily News, 23 December 1930, Page 6

SHEEPSKINS WITHOUT EARS

TWO CONVICTIONS SQUASHED.

'SATISFACTORY ACCOUNT OF SKINS*

Holding the possessor was required to givn a satisfactory account of the skin rather .than the removal ■ of■ ears from the skin, a reserved judgment of the Chief Justice, Sir Mchael Myiers, delivered in New Plymouth on Saturday confirmed his verbal decision oh an appeal heard when he was last in New Flymouth. The result was the quaShing.of ? w convictions against Claude Hutton Taylor entered by the magistrate on October ' 22 on two informations of being unlawfully in possession .of sheepskins from which the ears had been removed. The section of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act 1908 under which the informations were laid provides that: It > shall not be lawful for any person to cut off,., remove-or destroy any ear on such skin or to be in possession of any speh skin unless in. every instance he is - able to give a satisfactory account thereof wheji called upon so to do by any inspector, justice or court, , . I .

The question, said His Honour, turned " on the meaning of the words “satisfactory account thereof.” If the section- - that what was required from the appellant was a satisfactory account of the ownership of the skins or of. the car-. cases from which the skips were’’taken the appellant was improperly convicted, because it was admitted that : the account ho gave of the- skins or carcases was a true and honest and ■ i that the sheep from which x the skins were taken were killed by him and were - ■ on his own property ? and had ' been honestly acquired .by him. ■ • ? Mr. .Weston . had. contended that the . appcllant by. section 44 was required to ■ '•' give a satisfactory reason for the re- - rnoval of the ears from ‘ the;skins.'“lf the section,” continued His Honour’s judgment, “had used the words 'a satisf r t-.' reason therefor,’, there would have been a good deal more, to.be said in support of Mr. Weston’s contentions Those, however, are not .the words of: the section.” His Honour said’'that -iii - the absence of any helpful authorities he had to interpret the . section; as-best , he could. He' thought the section required that a person should give a- satisfactory account of the skins - . The reason a satisfactory account was required was that the; destruction of. the skins or the removal of the ears or brands was prima ‘ facie a suspicious circumstance. ■ The appellant, having admittedly .’ proved, that' the sheep from which the ;. skins were taken were his own property and had been honestly acquired, His Honour thought he had given* a “satisfactory account thereof,” and that lie should not have.been convicted. The.'ap-; peal ?as therefore upheld, and the conviction? quashed.*■ - ■ ; ■; ;, t ,At the hearing Mr. C. H. Croker appeared. for the appellant and Mr. C.-.H, ...., Weston for. the respondent,? ■ Detective; . • Meiklejohn. 1 ’ 1