WEEDS AND NEGLECT

Ellesmere Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 3228, 15 June 1928, Page 8

WEEDS AND NEGLECT

Everything iv nature has its uses. Shakespeare tells us that "there are "sermons in stones, and good in everything." Nevertheless, one finds it hard to find a use for weeds. However, a'scientific expert, writing in the New York Outlook, accords high praise to this form of vegetation, which, he says, aro the wound dressers of the soil. "Wherever man or nature makes a scar, the vigorous coarse-fibred weeds find out the spot, and straightway mend the injury. Hated and much objurgated, the weed, of whatever breed, is one of the most useful forces in nature. The farmer regards it as a foe, the gardener as a nuisance. In truth, it is a friend that persists, regardless of ill-treatment and attempts at extirpation. Hoil, to preserve its strength, must be protected with some sort of nature covering, otherwise the rains leach it or wash away the precious particles of mould that make it reproductive. Man neglects this factor in his dealings with the earth. Ploughed fields arc allowed to go uncovered after the crop is harvested. Washouts are left to take care, of themselves. 80 is burned over land. In all three instances great damage results, and much more would follow but for the energy of the weed family. "

Minsons Window of Glassware— Now you have the chance of seeing nice glass at low prices. Think how it would brighten up your table and really you would not spend much. 5

ALLEGED BOGUS INSPECTOB,

CHAKGE LAID TOO LATE

At the Christ-church. Magistrate's Court on Wednesday a very unusual case came before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., when William Brian pleaded not guilty to a charge of falsely pretending to be an inspector of the Labour Department at Southbridge in December last. A dismissal on a technical point was secured, the charge having been laid too late.

Evidence for the prosecution, on behalf of th« Department of Labour, was to the effect that a man who called himself an inspector of the department, had called at the hotel, where there was some trouble among the staff, and had advised the employees to make no further trouble, they being the best treated staff he had come across. It was suggested that Brian, who is a traveller for a brewery company, had pretended to be an inspector, on behalf of the licensee.

Witnesses included two girls formerly employed at the hotel, who indentified Brian as the man in question.

Mr Sargent said that he had several witnesses to prove that Brian could not have been at Southbridge on the day in question, but to save putting all that before the Court, he would ask for a dismissal on the ground that the prosecution, under the statute, must have been laid within three months of the alleged offence. This had not been done in this instance, and the prosecution must fail.

Mr R. T. Bailey, of the department, could find no escape from this, and Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., dismissed the case.