H.—32

8

I have also seen your son Stanley on the subject, and informed him that the sheep could only come under the following conditions: First, you will have to comply with any conditions imposed by Inspector Knyvett with regard to the driving of the sheep; and, in the second place, I could not allow any sheep to be brought on to the Tophouse Bun from the South until such time as you have a fence erected across the upper end of the Tophouse Flat so as to prevent any sheep from straying back. You are no doubt aware that sheep cannot be removed from Stanley Vale until such time as you obtain a clean certificate for the flock.—Arthur K. Blundell, Inspector of Sheep." That your petitioner erected the fence as required by Inspector Blundell, and used his best endeavours to obtain a clean certificate for his flock at Stanley Vale. That in the month of February, 1882, your petitioner received a communication, of which the following is a copy : " Memorandum from W. H. Knyvett, Sheep and Cattle Inspector and Begistrar of Brands, Amuri, 4th February, 1882, to Mr. W. L. Fowler, Stanley Vale, Amuri. Dear Sir, —In our several conversations in re driving sheep from Stanley Vale to Tophouse, you will remember I informed you that I was not quite sure upon one point—namely, whether in the meaning of " The Sheep Act, 1878," the Amuri Subdivision was or was not included in the Provincial District of Marlborough. You will also remember that I told you I was in communication with the Chief Inspector about the matter, and would let you know, either personally or by letter, the result of such communication. lam now in receipt of Mr. Bayly's reply, and take the earliest opportunity of letting you know how matters stand. I find that, as I had expected, the Amuri is not included in the Marlborough Provincial District, consequently section 69 of the Act does not apply to the case. Section 40 of the Act will show you. that you cannot remove sheep for which no clean certificate is in force; which means that, as you do not hold a clean certificate for the Stanley Vale flock, you will not be allowed to drive any portion of that flock to Tophouse or elsewhere. —W. H. Knyvett, Inspector of Sheep, Amuri." That in the month of May, 1882, your petitioner received^ a communication from Inspector Knyvett, of which the following is a copy : " Wednesday, 18th May, 1882. Mr. W. L. Fowler. Sir,—l have been instructed by the Chief Inspector not to grant any certificate until I have seen the whole of the sheep from Messrs. McArthur's back country. It is also my intention to see Tarndale sheep, which are running on the country through which you would have to travel, if you get a clean certificate. The Tarndale sheep were to have been in on the 19th, but the bad weather will have stopped them. I should advise you to turn the sheep out on your own run, as it will be too late to risk driving after all the sheep work is done at Tarndale. Your son Stanley will tell you where I shall be should you wish to see me.—Yours truly, W. H. Knyvett, Inspector of Sheep, Amuri." That on the 28th day of June, 1882, at Jollie's Pass, your petitioner obtained from Inspector Knyvett a clean certificate for his Stanley Vale Bun, and thereupon, applied to the said Inspector for permission, under section 46 of " The Sheep Act, 1878," to drive a mob of sheep from Stanley Vale across Tarndale Bun (then an infected run within the meaning of the Act) to the Tophouse Bun. That the said Inspector at first refused, but afterwards agreed to grant such permission, and arranged to meet your petitioner at Stanley Vale on the 29th day of June, 1882, for the purpose of seeing the said sheep start from Stanley Vale to the Tophouse. [See evidence of Knyvett, page 2; W. L. Fowler, page 7; Tom Fowler, page 8; and McArthur, page 9.] That on the said 29th day of June your petitioner caused the sheep intended to be removed as aforesaid to be mustered, and held them ready for the inspection of the said Inspector. That the said Inspector did not attend at Stanley Vale as arranged; and, after holding such sheep on the 29th and 30th days of June and the Ist day of July, your petitioner started on the 2nd day of July to drive the said sheep to Tophouse, fully believing that he had the Inspector's permission so to do, and that the only reason the Inspector did not attend at Stanley Vale, as arranged, was that the latter did not consider it necessary to inspect the said sheep before their removal, he having inspected them shortly before granting your petitioner the said clean certificate. That in driving the said sheep your petitioner had to cross the Tarndale Bun, and your petitioner telegraphed to his son, who was in charge of the Tophouse Bun, that the latter should give Mr. Sim, the manager of the said Tarndale Bun, the notice required to be given in such case by section 49 of the said Sheep Act. That your petitioner's said son gave a personal verbal notice to Mr. Sim, with which Mr. Sim expressed himself satisfied. [See Mr. Sim's evidence, page 5.] That in driving such sheep your petitioner also crossed a small portion of the Clarence Bun, but, at the time of driving such sheep, your petitioner was not aware that he was crossing the said Clarence Bun, as the boundary-fence between the said Tarndale and Clarence Buns was erected in such a way as to lead the general public to believe that the part of the said Clarence Bun crossed by your petitioner was in reality part of the Tarndale Bun.. [See evidence of Mr. Low, page 6.] That, being under the impression that your petitioner had not to cross any part of the said Clarence Bun, he gave no notice to the owner or occupier of the said run. That on the 28th day of August Inspector Knyvett laid three informations against your petitioner for breaches of the Sheep Act: (1) For driving 1,184 sheep through an infected run, to wit, the Tarndale Bun, without the permission of an Inspector, contrary to section 46 of the said Sheep Act; (2) for driving 1,184 sheep through Tarndale Bun without giving the notice required by the 49th section of the said Act; (3) for driving 1,184 sheep through Clarence Bun without giving the notice required by the 49th section of the said Act. That the said informations were tried before Caleb Whitefoord, Esq., at Waiau, on the 26th day of October last, and, after the evidence (of which a copy is hereunto annexed) had been taken, your petitioner was convicted upon the said informations and adjudged to pay fines and costs, amounting in the whole to the sum of £77 10s., particulars whereof are also hereto annexed. That the smallest fine allowed by the said Act was inflicted upon your petitioner by the said Magistrate, because, as the latter stated in his judgment, he considered that, with reference to driving the said sheep without the permission of the Inspector, your petitioner had been misled by the said Inspector, and with reference to driving the said sheep through the Tarndale Bun your petitioner had committed a mere technical breach of the Act, inasmuch as the personal notice mentioned in