NO RESCUE OF CATTLE

Taranaki Daily News, 17 October 1935, Page 6

NO RESCUE OF CATTLE

HUIROA CHARGE DISMISSED.

RESERVED DECISION GIVEN. A reserved decision on the charge of rescuing cattle seized for impounding, preferred against Lionel Bishop, Huiroa, at the Magistrate’s Court, Stratford, on October- 2 was delivered by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at Stratford yesterday. The charge was dismissed, subject to Bishop’s paying witnesses expenses (17s) and court costs (£1). On October 2 Bishop was charged with rescuing cattle belonging to the farm he was managing which were impounded after being found trespassing on Crown land at Huiroa. He was notified that the cattle were impounded and that they would be Released on payment of trespass and poundage fees of £4 6s 6d, but objected to paying the sum. When the cattle were being driven past his place on the way to the Stratford pound, he headed them off through a gateway on to his property and closed the gate after them. Mr. S. Macalister defended the action for Bishop. He was satisfied that the cattle were impounded within the meaning of the Act, under which the occupier of a property might impound on his own ground cattle trespassing there, said Mr. Woodward. The impounding was done by Mr. H. V. Chatterton, field inspector for the Crown, and the Crown was the owner of the property. The definition of occupier included the owner and the -agent of the owner. The cattle were undoubtedly trespassing on Crown land and the notice required to be given when cattle were impounded on the occupier’s own land was given. The impounding was therefore regular. Furthermore, after a very short period the cattle were shifted to the nearest available pound in accordance with the terms of the Act. On the way to the pound, however, the cattle were diverted into a gateway by Bishop. That action did not appear to him to be a rescue; a rescue implied some measure of force or some act calculated to cause a breach of the peace. Thanks to the good temper of Mr. R. H. Murphy, who was driving the cattle, and the sensible instructions Mr. Murphy had received from Mr. Chatterton, nothing of that kind took place. Mr. Woodward did consider however, that the action was an interference with the cattle and the list of offences under the Act included ' interference. He was satisfied that Bishop could be convicted of interference with cattle actually impounded and in the course of being shifted from the place of impounding to a recognised pound. 1 , Mr. Woodward considered that the fees charged in connection with the impounding were excessive. The impounding fee of £1 8s was not chargeable when the cattle were impounded on private property. It was possible that if the correct fees only had been charged Bishop might have paid them. He therefore dismissed the charge.