View report page

111
"Act" to remove the onus from the responsible person, would only open the
door to fraud and the raising of endless objections.
So far from it being desirable to relax any of the existing statutory
provisions for safeguarding the public from the danger attaching to this class
of offence, it has been made abundantly clear that the law requires strengthening
in one essential point, as offenders even now can derive, in certain cases,
a positive immunity from the consequences of their evil deeds.
The following is a case in point.
In December last a farmer owned a sheep that died in a field. A labourer
who found it sent for the bailiff, and the latter cut its throat. The bailiff
then handed it over to a local butcher, who dressed the carcass and sent it to
the Central Markets, Smithfield, where it was seized, taken before a Magistrate,
condemned as being unfit for food, and ordered to be destroyed.
The butcher was subsequently summoned for being the person to whom
the meat belonged to at the time it was deposited for the purpose of sale at
the market.
The above facts were proved in evidence, and the butcher himself even
admitted he took all responsibility, but as he satisfied the Court that he
derived no benefit from the transaction, and that the whole of the proceeds
would have gone to the farmer's agent, the summons was dismissed on the
ground that defendant was not liable as owner.
In this instance the accused, probably for trade purposes, was willing to
take responsibility, but the Magistrate could not place this to his disadvantage,
and looked upon him merely as an agent.
This is by no means a new question. In many cases the guilty person has
escaped on account of the wording of the Section : "and the person to whom
"the said belongs or did belong at the time of sale, or exposure for sale or
"deposit for the purpose of sale, or of preparation for sale, or in whose
"possession or on whose premises the same was found."
/
If the words, "and the person or persons, if any, under whose control the
"same was" were added after the word "belong," it would make both
persons liable, and the Court would be enabled to decide on the evidence as
to how the responsibility should be apportioned.
At present the owner escapes because he has no knowledge, and the butcher
because he is not the owner.
I advise, therefore, that steps be taken to obtain such alteration in the
wording of the Act.