Wednesday, January 24.

West Coast Times, Issue 1972, 25 January 1872, Page 2

Wednesday, January 24.

(Before Ch G. FitzGerald, Esq ) BREACH OF DISEASED CATTLE ACT. Thomas Holmes, captain of the p.s. Charks Edward, appeared to an information charging him with landing one head of cattle on the Ist of January instant, without a certificate from the Inspector. Mr Harvey appeared for defendant. Thomas Knowks Christian, Inspector of Cattle, deposed that he inspected some cattle on board the Charles Edward on the 31st of December. The next day one of the cattle (a calf) was gone. Learned that it had beeu landed and sold to JVlr Ilinchcliff. Made many attempts to see the captain but without succe*. Saw him at last on the vessel, some short time before the Charles Edward left, and' made a demand for the fees. Defendant said he would pay presently, and repeated it. Meanwhile the >\ssel was being swung off, and eventually put to sea without the demand being satisfied. In cross-examination Mr Christian admitted that he frequently made it a practice to collect the fees from the con<ignors or consignees of cattle, but he said he should not do so in future. William Barton deposed that he was sent on board the Charles Edward to collect the fee?. Saw Captain Holmes on Sunday afternoon, December 31, and he said l:e would collect the fees from the owners of the cattle and would give the amount to witness on the following day. Called the next day, and Captain Holmes said he was going to take the cattle to Westport and had, therefore, no need to pay fees here. Witness B«id he would tell Air Christian.' By Mr Harvey: San- Mr Price who spoke about landing a calf. Witness told him he might do so when the fee was paid. Witness had at the time the certificate in his pocket, but did not ask Prico for tbe fee. Never said to Price ho might land the calf, except as before stated. A\ r i ness had never inspected cattle, but had se\cral times gone on board re-scls to collect tbe fees, when instructed to do so by Mr Christian. Mr Harvey said that there was no wish or intention on the pirt of Capt. Holmea to evade payment of 'he fee. The fact was that, Mr Christian had I .ecu in the habit of collecting tho fee* from the parties who brought the cattle, or from the purchasers , and therefore defendant, relying upon that had not taken any steps himself to see the (ec» paid, think i.ig that Mr Christian would do so as he had alway* done. There was no breach of the Act iv landing the calf, as the Inspector himself admitted that he had made out a certificate for it, the only omission was that the half-crown fee had not been paid. There had been no attempt to evade payment, and he would prove that the fees had actually been tendered to Mr Christian. James Drane deposed that he brought down five calves on board the Charles Edward on the 31st of December last |

there were two other calves on board be- 1 longing to Price and two to Bell. On the < day the vessel was going away winess 1 saw the Inspector and offered to pay the j 1 fees for his (witness's) calves. Price < offered to pay also. The Inspector re- i fused to receive the money. 1 To Mr Christian : I did not offer to pay < the fees for the whole of the calves. < His Worship said the Act was clear ] enough. The Inspector was required to in- i spect the cattle, and the amended Act made i the Captain liable for the fees of inspect ion < The Inspector had performed his duty and defendant had neglected to pay the fees , 1 and had actually taken his vessel out to | s sea while putting off the Inspector's < demand for payment. It was not to be expected that the Inspector wa* to run 1 about collecting" the fees from the various i owners of the cattle. The Captain, who J was responsible should see that he got the ( fees paid beforehand. It was true that the : Inspector had at times collected the tees himself, but that did not relieve the Captain 1 from his responsibility. With respect to the tender of payment, had it) been proved that the whole amount of fees had been tendered, there would have been something in the defence, but that was not proved at all. Fined £5 with costg, including £1 10 i j for attendance of witnesses. $ There was another information against j defendant for refusing to pay the fee* on ( the cattle inspected, but not landed, which \ ■was withdrawn on payment of the fees and r costs of Court. b