Large Mobs of Cattle Are Nuisance on Roads.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18451, 30 April 1928, Page 1

Large Mobs of Cattle Are Nuisance on Roads.

RICCARTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BY-LAW IS UPHELD BY JUDGMENT OF COURT,

(4 T AM SATISFIED on the evidence that large mobs of cattle 1 011 the roads within the borough are a nuisance to the inhabitants, impede the passage of the public, and are a danger to the users of the streets.”

This was the text of an important judgment delivered by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, in a case in which three defendants were charged with driving mobs of cattle, more than fifty in number, through Riccarlon Borough, contrary to the by-law.

The charges were brought to test the validity of the Riccarton Borough bylaw in regard to the driving of cattle through the streets of the borough. The by-law was admitted by the de fence, as also were the facts as set out in the information that defendants drove mobs of over 50 cattle through streets in the borough. Mr Johnston appeared for the informant, the Riccarton Borough Coun cil, Mr Thomas represented the dc fendants, Rosser and Webb, and Mr Acland appeared for the third defendant, Blumskey. Small Mobs Readily Controlled. “The evidence satisfies me,” said Mr Mosley, “that small mobs of cattle up to fifty* in number, can be more rcadiiy controlled than large mobs of several hundred. “I can see no reason why mobs of fifty or under should not be controlled by more than one drover, and so con trolled as to minimise the danger to the inhabitants and users of the road. “A large mob of several hundred cattle is apt to block the whole thoroughfare and render its use by the public dangerous and inconvenient. The evidence leads me to conclude that small mobs of large cattle are easier handled and travel faster than mobs of several hundred. It is to be noted that the restriction in hours in the bylaw does not apply to cows in milk. By-law Quite Honest. “I agree with counsel, for the borough that the by-law is an honest attempt by members of the Riccarton Borough Council to do justice to the drovers, the inhabitans of the borough and to users of the road. It is, in my opinion, a bona fide attempt by the council to regulate, as it should be regulated, the driving of loose cattle through the streets of the borough. In my opinion, no sufficient reason has been, shown why this by-law should be held to be unreasonable. “ The ne)V by-law is very similar to that dealing with cattle droving in the city of Christchurch. The Riccarton Borough Cotincil, in passing its new bylaw. evidently gave consideration to the by-laws of the city and, in fact, brought into force an effective by-law, harmonising with the by-laws of Christchurch. The existing by-law, sought to be impeached. takes full cognisance of the by-laws of the adjoining local authority and is reasonably in accord with them. Points In The Defence. “ Defendants sought to impress four points upon the Court:— (1) That where there is one mob of, say, 200 cattle, the chance of a breakaway is much less than where there are four mobs of 50 each. (2) That it is a known fact that the wilder type of cattle, both large and small, have a mob psychology and that they stick together. The larger the mob the more they stick. (3) Under the by-law one man can drive 50 large cattle, which it was submitted was wrong. The real danger from a mob was a breakaway and if only one man was driving the cattle the breakaway would be allowed to go or else the mob let go. One man could not look after both. (4) The longer the cattle are on the road the more liable they are to cause damage. A mob of 200 head will travel along the road as quickly as a mob of 50. Actually one mob of 200 did a journey in a quarter of the time that, it would take four mobs of fifty each. “It was contended on behalf of the borough that the by-law was an honest attempt to do justice to the drovers, to the inhabitants and the users of the road, and in this I concur.” Each of the defendants was convicted and fined 20s and costs. Solicitors’ fee was entered against Rosser and Webb. £3 3s each, and against Blumskey at £2