VETER IX ARY JURI" PRUDENCE. 
279 
summonses, but an appeal against such a decision had been heard in 
the Court of Queen’s Bench, which Court had made a rule absolute 
directing the issue of such summonses. Under these circumstances 
there would be no necessity for taking any steps to remove uncer- 
tainty. 
As to the second question, it had never been the intention 
nor the practice of the Privy Council to refuse assistance in carry- 
ing out this difficult Act of Parliament. As to the reply to a letter 
which was referred to in the question, he had looked and found 
that there was one letter that by pure accident merely contained the 
statement that had been mentioned, but generally speaking, when 
no interpredon of an Act had been given, it was the practice at the 
Privy Council Office not to attempt to give an interpretation, as to 
pursue such a course would only mislead, because it was not an 
interpretation that could have any force in a court of law. But the 
officers of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council were 
directed to give all the assistance in their power ; where there was 
any question as to facts they were to answer it, but they were 
simply to decline to answer as to interpretations of the law when 
such interpretations would be misleading. 
The case accordingly came on for hearing at the Guildhall on 
Tuesday, before W. J. Utten Browne, and J. M. Venning, Esqs. 
Mr. Huggins was summoned at the instance of Mr. W. Smith, 
veterinary inspector under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 
1869, for unlawfully exposing for sale in the Norwich Cattle Market, 
on the 20th of November last, a certain number of animals, together 
with sixteen oxen affected with the foot and mouth disease, contrary 
to the provisions of the said Act, whereby lie had incurred a penalty 
not exceeding .£80. 
Mr. Mendham (Town Clerk) appeared in support of the informa- 
tion ; and Mr. A. T. Clowes, New Buckenliam, for the defendant. 
Mr. Mendham , in opening, said that the information was laid 
under (lie 57th Section of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 
1869, and he submitted that it would be the duty of the magistrates 
to convict unless the defendant could show that he did not know 
that his animals were affected, and could not with reasonable dili- 
gence have obtained such information. After stating the facts of the 
case as they were afterwards proved in evidence, he said that the 
Market Committee felt bound not to pass such a case over, because 
it was absolutely necessary for the protection of the public to enforce 
stringent measures for the stamping out of the disease in question, 
and in all cases in which there was reason to believe that a man 
knew the law, or might have known the law, he was entitled to no 
consideration. 
Wm. Smithy veterinary surgeon, deposed, — As inspector I visited 
the Norwich Cattle Market on the 20th November last, and dis- 
covered a herd of beasts belonging to the defendant affected with 
foot and mouth disease. The defendant, who is a large cattle dealer 
and farmer, admitted that the beasts were his. I ordered the beasts 
to be driven into Barnard’s yard, and I there examined them in the 
