The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1866-10-27 00:00:00

THE CATTLE PLAGUE ACT-
IMPORTANT APPEAL.

At the Doncaster Michaelmas Sessions, on Friday
and Saturday last, an appeal of more than ordinary
interest to those connected with the removal of cattle,
as well as of railway companies, was heard before
a full bench of magistrates, and occupied the greater
part of both days. The applicant was Mr. Word 9
worth, an extensive cattle dealer, of Darlington, i 4
the comity of Durham, for whom Mr. Maule, Q C,
(specially retained), and Mr. Waddy appeared; the
respondents, two of the magistrates of the Barnsley
Petty Sessional Division, were represented by Mr.
Shaw and Mr. Blackburn. The facts of the case are
as follows:

Oa the 7th of June last the agent of the appellant pur-
chased aixteen head of cattle at a place called Wigton, in
Norfolk, and received three licenses to have them removed
from there to Fekenharn station, and thence to Barnsley ;
and, if flummery (in each separate Instance), to Wakefield,
Elvecer, and Worshro' 'Ale. Toe beasts were duly put on
the railwey and ordered to be forwarded to Barnsley
On arriving at Peterborough, howev(r, by mistake they were
sent on to Darlington instead of to Barnsley. ho -lag been
informed of the error made, the appellant telrgrauhed from
Barnsley to Derlington to have the boaats forwarded to him
Immediately, which was done. On arriving at Btrneley,
police-officer demanded to see the llcenc.es enthorlenf the
g 509741 lilitAgti rttiy,g M tickt9s, sl4 stivb.

..-13-18 mew* had Ilk 4711 ailed UnirlllllllFinOlrid.' for
sotrans, twit,
t: t.,77 of three days am stated In tlliVgCoun-
cit were given to him. Them he cetnelsiti d said
he ehonld require licences from Imetingleq,, the from
whence they were last removed. TheseuldiVaLt
coining, the appellant was summoned before
at Barnsley, who, after hearing evidence, of
appealed against.
On. the case being opened, Mr. Made chnanded
that if. there was an offence, as alleged, it had been
ecEovarnsmernytillhettearngmagidrainwhitch;tesha:duPebiAnt7beenl' diTeDuriadibatn're hdtolunlisicoomp'wnlll:l:: that
offence must have taken place within the juri lotion
of the convicting magistrates. On the other side, it
was contended that the offence warn continuous from
the time the cattle were retrucked at Darlington.
The objection was overruled. Mr. Maule then took
objection to the form of conviction, which he con.
tended, was bad ck the face of it. The point was
reeerved. After hearing a large :lumber of witnesses
from Norfolk, Peterborough, and Darlington, the
bench retired to consider their decision. On their
return into court, the chairman said the bench were of
opinion that the Barnsley magistrates, with limited
evidence placed before them, could have arrived at
no other decision than the one they had come to. At
the IMMO time they considered that no fraud had been
intended by the appellant, as the railway bill awl
licences stated that the cattle were to be sent from
Briston to Fakenham Station, and from theses to
Barnsley. The bench, therefore, concluded to let the
cage stand, subject to the decision of the Conit of
Queen's Bench as to whether the licences from Bilden
to Barnsley were good. If that court decided that
the licences were valid, then the conviction would be
quashed. The other point raised by Mr. Maule, as to
the form of conviction being bad, was also reserved
for the court above. An application on the part of the
respondents for coats was refused.