Settlers’ Troubles.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 625, 25 June 1891, Page 3

Settlers’ Troubles.

ALLEGED BREACHES OF SHEEP ACT, At the B.M. Court on Tuesday, Mr Booth presidiog, two informations sworn by Mr E. W. Wells against Mr Chambers, for alleged breaches of the Sheep Act, came on for hear, icg. Mr Chrisp appeared for the informant, and Mr DeLautour for the defendant. The eause of complaint was that Mr Chambers was alleged not to have given proper notice prior to mustering sheep. Mr Chrisp contended that the sworn infermation was prima facie evidence, and it now lay with the defence to seek to disprove the Sharge. Mr DeLautour said that the section was not applicable in the case where the parties were on equal merits. The sworn statement could not be taken as prima facie evidence—ft might bold good in the case of an inspector and make the onus of proof lay with defendant. Mr Chrisp said the position was exactly the Mtn* Min a breach of tbe Customs or Beer Duty Act—any informer might lay the information. His Worship did not think it could apply in this oase, and there must be further evidence before he could decide it in that way, Mr Chrisp said this oase must be decided in the Supreme Court, Campbell Thomson, Sheep Inspector, deposed that he had written to Mr Chambers asking him whether he had dipped his sheep, and be replied that he had dipped bis hoggets (about two months ago) and was dipping the Others as he went along, At this stage Mr Chrisp stated that the wrong information bad been read. Mr Johnstonesaid he had made nodiscrimioaiion) both informations were put in at the same time. Mr Chrisp said he had arranged with Mr Greenwood ; he asked that the proceedings should be taken it novo on the other information. His Worship said Mr Chrisp had heard the information read, and had examined witnesses on it. Mr DeLautour objected to tbe request, and then Mr Chrisp said he would go on. Informant deposed that defendant's run gdjoined his. .On the IS'.h March went ever to defendants yard' and saw him mustering, and the sheep were removed from the run. He did not 24 hours before the I2th receive notice of removal. In consequence of defendant's language had left the yard. Mr Chambers had refused to comply with the Ac*.

To Mr DeLautour: Was at bis own house when he saw the mustering. Did not see Mr Chambers mustering the sheep, but they were being mustered, and He saw Mr Chambers in ths yard when he went over. Could not tell the distance from his housemay be a quarter of a mile. The sheep wore mixed, running near Debbie’s. There were several thousand sheep - did not think Mr Chambers’ flocks were divided. His own prsoßoe was, to the beat of his knowledge, to give every legal notice. Did not give notice When mustering mere y to shift the sheep. Aiwaya gave Mr Caloott notice when he had mustered bis sheep for dipping, docking, Or shearing. Mr Caloott wou'd not deny that. Defendant told him blmseif that the sheep he Was mustering were for sale. Had not sold jny sheep for over two ye^rs—did pot give police then because the fences were right, gad not drafted strangers, at a regular grafting, and sent to neighbors to come and Bet their sheep—he had at an irregular draftig. Did not give notice two years ago, because the fences were good. To Mr Chrisp : Some of his sheep were in Mr Chambers’ yard on the 13th March, and believed there were some there yet. (Letter jc Mr Chambers put Ito, saying he must dip bis sheep again, after they had mixed with those cf Mr Chambers,) Believed the detpnftent’s sheep wars not dipped. ■to H>> Worship ( He did not see the sheep taken out on the road,

Thomas Carroll deposed that he was manager for Mr Chambers on March 12, when a mob cf about 1500 wethers had been mustered for sale, and subsequently sent to Napier. To Mr DeLautour: Mr Wells was io the yards, and bad full opportunity to get any sheep. Mr Chambers told Mr Wells, who who was very “ cheeky ” to Mr Chambers, to go away; but he bad every opportunity to get his sheep. The sheep were on the run from the 12th to tbe 17th. Mr Chambers told informant the sheep were to be Bent to Napier. The practice was to give notice of muster at docking, shearing, and weaning time—it was not the custom to give formal notice at any other time. To Mr Chrisp : Could not say all that took place between informant and defendant—was attending to his other work. Heard Mr Chambers tell Mr Wells that he was drafting the sheen for Napier. Mr Wells was wrangling and was excited, and Mr Chambers told him be wished he would leave the place. The sheep were yarded in two mohs, one on the 12th and the other on the 17th. Had drafted 400 sheep when informant was there, but they were in the yard. Mr DeLautour submitted that the information had failed. Tbe section of the Sheep Act was one divided into two portions. Mr Chrisp had brought his information on the first part, but the only penalty allotted was as to the second portion of tbe section quoted in the case. Informant had given defendant no notice that he required to have written notice at mustering, and he urged that unless a neighbor demanded it, it was not necessary to give formal notice of irregular musters. Mr Wells himse'.f said he did not think it necessary to give notice when he mustered for shifting his flocks or for sale. Mr Chrisp said the distinction was clearly given that every occupier must give notice to occupiers of adjoir ing runs. His Worship said that was admitted, but counsel’s argument was that there was no penalty. Mr Chrisp said he knew that, but he con tended that there was a penalty up to £2O, and that his friend was taking a very strained view.

Mr DeLautour said if the Act were read in MrChrisp’s way the penally was alternative on Mr Wells. He held there was only one view by the plain English of the Act. Mr Chrisp held that if the words h-d any meaning they meant that the sheep owner must give notice. However, if His Worship decided that his friend’s view was right the point could be settled in the Supreme Court. Mr Booth : I haven’t decided anything yet. It is assuming a great deal to threaten to go into the Supreme Court before I have decided anything. Mr Chrisp continued his argument, submitting that there could be no two ways of reading the Act, that defendant was compelled to give notice. Hie Worship did not think he could read the Act in any other way than that there was no penalty unless the neighbors required notice to be given on every occasion. Therefore he dismissed the information.

Mr Chrisp asked His Worshipto state a oase for the ruling of the Supreme Court, which he agreed to do. Mr Chrisp did not object to costs.

Mr Chrisp applied for permission to post>one the hearing of the other information, >ut Mr DeLautour objected; he did net understand the appeal. Mr Chrisp said he felt certain the Supreme Court would uphold his view. After furthur discussion the information was withdrawn.