The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-27 00:00:00

The Cattle Plague.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
Several matters of great importance connected
with the cattle plague during the past week came
under the consideration of the magistracy of this
county. One of these had reference to the powers
of inspectors in the performance of their duties, and
was discussed on Saturday by the Aylesbury Bench
—a fully attended one—at the instance of Mr. H.
Lepper. He said that the farmers of his district had
become alarmed by the removal of manure by road,
rail, and canal, lest the proximity of any of it which
may be impregnated with the virus of the disease
should communicate that disease to their cattle. At
the request of some of them he attended to ask the
advice of the Bench, especially as to stop all such
transit would be a very delicate matter. One magi-
strate suggested that an order should be issued that
no manure should be allowed to be brought into the
district unless it had been previously deodorised and
certified to that effect. The Order in Council now
in force was referred to by the clerk, and the only
pertinent clause was found to be the 10th, which
said " Every inspector shall have power within his
district to cause to be cleansed and disinfected, in
any manner which he may think proper, any pre-
mises in which animals labouring under the said dis-
order have been or may be, and to cause to be dis-
infected, and, if necessary, destroyed, any fodder,
manure, or refuse matter which he may deem likely
to propagate the disorder." This showed that an
inspector had no power to stop a cart or a barge
laden with manure unless they were on premises in
which affected animals were or had been kept, the
latter part of the clause being governed by the words
in the first portion, " in which animalslabouringunder
the said disorder have been or may be." Though it
was accounted exceedingly desirable that some legis-
lative provision should be made for the cases referred
to by Mr. Lepper, yet the Bench decided that under
the Order they hadno power of veto such as that on
which he had consulted them. Mr. Lepper reported
that two additional cases of the disease had
occurred at Aylesbury during the week, one
being that of one of his own cattle, which was taken
ill one day and died on the next. On the application
of Mr. Joseph Boord, an additional inspector was
appointed for the Missenden sub-petty sessional
division. Another question of importance was con-
sidered at Newport Pagnel, where the justices had
to hear a case against Mr. Alfred Smith, of Waven-
don, for driving 17 heifers into that village for sale,
_ contrary to the orders of the justices and the Privy
Council. The circumstances under which the in-
formation was laid were that an auction sale of the
stock of Mr. Goodall, at Wavendon, took place on
the 29th of November, and a part of the stock sold
consisted of 17 heifers, which belonged to the de-
fendant, and which were driven by him on Mr.
Goodall's premises for the purpose of sale. Mr.
Shepherd, of Luton, for the defence, took objection
to the proceedings. He said it appeared from the
information that the justices of the division, being
the "local authority" for the district, had 6n the
11th October given notice, pursuant to the Order
of the Privy Council of the 22d of September last,
that certain animals should from that date until the
13th December be excluded from every market and
fair within the division, and that by an Order of the
Privy Council of the 31st of October it was ordered
that when any such notice had been published by
the local authority it should not be lawful while such
notice should be in force to bring or send any such
animals to any place within such jurisdiction for
the purpose of exhibition or sale. He (Mr. Shepherd)
said if these orders were still in force it would appear
that an offence had been committed ; but he called
the attention of the Bench to the Order of the Privy
Council made on the 23d November, by which the
Orders of the 22d September and the 31st October
had been revoked, with certain exceptions which did
not apply to the present case, and it was also therein
provided that such revocation should not affect any
appointment made, or any notice given, or any act
done, or penalty recoverable, under any Order
thereby revoked; so that the Order of the justices
would up to the 13th December only operate to the
exclusion of such animals from any market or fair
within the division, and not to the prohibition of
ttat.h.,g them else where for sale ; and as the act done
by the defendant was on November 29, being sub-
sequent
to the date of the last Order in Council, re-
iL,
.; ii,rx Awn.
laid, and before December 6, when the justices
issued their second order under authority of the
Order of the Privy Council of November 23, ex-
tending the prohibition from December 13 to March
1 next, he argued there was no case against his
client. The Bench, after some consultation, held
that the objection was valid, and dismissed the in-
formation against Mr. Smith, and also one against
Mr. Henry Harris, of Ilusborne-Crawley, who had
sent three cows to the same place for sale. Mr.
Shepherd incidentally referred to this case at the
Aylesbury Petty Sessions on Saturday, and said
that according to this decision nearly all the orders
issued by the justices of Bedfordshire and Bucks
became inefficient, so far as convictions for sale on
occasions otherwise than fairs and markets were
concerned.