52 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
ROCHESTER PETTY SESSIONS. 
Eoot and Mouth Disease. 
James Stedman, miller and farmer at Gillingham, was summoned by 
Superintendent Merritt for having in his possession two cows affected with 
foot and mouth disease, and with unlawfully neglecting to give notice as 
soon as possible to the police, on the 3rd of November. 
Mr. Merritt said he found that Mr. Stedman had two cows with the foot 
and mouth disease, and as the disease was on the increase the chief constable 
directed that these proceedings should be taken as a warning to others. 
Mr. R. Prall appeared for the defendant. 
Police-constable Button said on the 3rd Nov. last he visited Mr. Stedman’s 
farm at Twedale in the parish of Gillingham, and saw the bailiff. Asked 
him if the cattle were healthy. He said there were two cows which were 
slightly afflicted with the foot and mouth disease ; the bailiff said it was not 
worth while to report it. Told him he must report it. This was the first 
intimation he had had in respect to the present case. 
By Mr. Prall — It was on the 3rd Nov. when he called. Mr. Stedman 
was not there when he called. Did not usually ask to see the master; 
inquired as to the state of the cows from the bailiff. 
Mr. J. B. Martin , inspector of this division, said he received notice on 
Nov. 3rd from the last witness to visit defendant’s stock. He went to 
Twedale farm on the 4th, and found six heifers that had nearly recovered 
from the foot and mouth disease, and two cows then suffering from it. 
They were all together in the farm-yard. Asked the bailiff, Mr. Pearce, 
how long they had been afflicted, and he said ten days. Inquired for Mr. 
Stedman, but he was not at home. 
By Mr. Prall — He believed they had all been treated for the disease. 
Mr. Prall contended that there was no evidence in this case, and that no 
information ought to have been made ; if their worships looked carefully at 
the facts, he (Mr. Prall) had no doubt but that they would be of his opinion. 
He then referred to the Act, from which he considered that no offence had 
been committed. There had been no concealment in the matter; Mr. 
Manning was attending the cows, and there was no intention on the part of 
the defendant to commit a breach of the order. He called 
Mr. J. Manning , Rochester, who said he had had great experience for 
twenty-seven years ; was sent for to Mr. Stedman’s on the 26th October 
to attend nine cows with the foot and mouth disease ; they recovered 
very quickly. The bailiff told him that he had given notice to the police, 
and he (witness) told the bailiff that it would not be necessary to make any 
further report. 
Mr. Merritt merely asked for a nominal fine, as he believed the defendant 
had committed the offence in error. 
Pined 21., including costs. The bench would inflict heavier penalties 
in future. 
Mr. John Manning , the witness in the case, was then charged, on a 
summons, by Mr. Supt. Merritt with aiding and abetting Mr. Stedman in 
committing the offence for which he had been convicted. 
Mr. Prall appeared for the defendant. 
Mr. Merritt stated that the summons had been taken out in consequence 
of his having received information that the defendant had advised parties that 
it was not necessary to make a report as to the state of the cattle, which 
was very detrimental in their carrying out the provisions of the Act. 
Mr. Stedman, defendant in the last case, said he knew the defendant. He 
attended his cows during the time they were diseased. Told him that 
