MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2147, 24 March 1908, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

MONDAY, MARCH 23. (Before Mr W. A. Burton S.M.) l NTERESTING NOXIOUS WEEDS CASE.

Hugh Binnio (Mr. T. Alston Coleman) was proceeded against by the Inspector of Noxious Weeds (Mr W. J. Nolan) for failing to keep las land at To lvaraka. clear of blackberry. Mr Nolan said'lio understood defendant made a profit from the blackberry and belli that ho was thoreforo not called upon to do anything. It was also held Hint tho plantation was a hedge, but as it was about six feet high and eight feet thick it could hardly bo called a heclgo. Walter Miller, Inspector in charge of tho Agricultural Department in Gisborne, said that because of unfavourable roports from Mr Ross ho visited defendant's property on March 10th, and found a hedge of blackberry about ten chains long running through tho section. Tho hedge was in an overgrown condition, and it was not cut or trimmed as required by law. In some places tlio undergrowth liad been cut away, but it had not been burnt. There was also a patch near the i'owl-liouso which had not been cut this season. At tho end of tho hedge there was another patch about 27 feet in length and ten feet wide at tho broadest part. In ono place tho hedge was over eight feet high. Any cutting which had been done was more in the way of cultivation. Saw defendant, who said tho blackberry was the best paying fruit he had, and he said ho would like to have tho ease settled as to whether lie could cultivate tho scrub or not.—By Mr Coleman: Had bad experience of noxious weeds for about fifteen years. Could not distinguish one kind of blackberry from another. The S.M. objected to Mr Nolan giving evidence of a report by a Government Biologist on a pieco of blackberry frown riled to him. Mr Nolan said that in that ease he would have to Dimly for time to bring the Government Biologist to Gisborne. William Ross, Inspector of Noxious Weeds, corroborated the cvidcnco of the previous witness. He sent to the Government Biologist a specimen of blackberry from a neighboring section, which so far as witness knew was the same kind of blackberry. From information received ho knew tho specimen sent away was tho blackberry required to be kept down, and lie knew' there were eighty species of tho plant, produced tho sample sent to the Biologist and also a sample of defendant’s plant.—By Mr Coleman : Had been an Inspector of noxious weeds sinco 1907, but had been dealing with noxious weeds since the Noxious Weeds Act came into force. Neither of tho leaves produced by counsel was similar to tho plant on defendant’s land. Did not know whether the joints of the blackberry mentioned in tho Act grew into tho ground. Did not think defendant’s plants grew upwards and did not trail. The bunch of fruit produced, was not exceptionally large. The fruit on the plants would cause the boughs to bend over somewhat. Mr Coleman contended that defendant did not come under tho Act. The blackberry mentioned in the Act was tho old English blackberry, but tho plant grown by defendant was an entirely separate variety. He would put in text books showing that defendant’s plant was a highly cultivated hybrid with tho mulberry. Tho blackberry in tlio Act was a trailer—it ran along tho ground and the tips of the branches grew into tho ground. Tho defendant gave evidenct that tho plants on his properly were Itubus Lawtoniana. Knew Rub us Fruticosis (tho plant mentioned tho Act). His plants were not upright growth, but if not attended to thc-y would overhang, reach tho ground and run along the ground, though it would not grow in unless it was layered. Tho leaves of tlio two varieties were different; as were also the stalks. The fruits were: different in size and flavor. R. Lawtoniana was generally about ten times more prolific than It. Fruticosis. R. Fruticosis was essentially a. trailer. Produced three specimens gathered from places a good distance from each other, The ends and joints would grow into the ground. There was no R. Fruticosis on his property. Sheep would cat It. Lawtoniana. Every year regularly tho hedgo had been cut and trimmed.—By Mr Nolan: Ho did not plant the hedge. It. Lawtoniana was an improved blackberry. According to authorities tho English blackberry, of which he had produced samples, was the only species properly called It. Fruticosis. If the Inspector said that It. Fruticosis was an Italian plant he would be wrong, as bo would be if be said there were. 80 varieties of tho species. Alexander Thompson, nurseryman, substantially corroborated tlio evidence of the previous witness. He would call R. Lawtoniana a blackberry. It and It. Fruticosis wero entirely different.—By Mr Nolan: R. Fruticosis was tlio parent of all blackberries, but Lawtoniana would spread in certain limits. James Fisher, fruiterer, said lie knew tho iliffreent kinds of fruit from separate varieties of blackberries. Could toll from the cluster of fruit produced that it was an improved blackberry. Tlios. S. Trewern, manager for Messrs H. C. Gibbons and Co., seedsmen, gavo evidence of the habits of R. Lawtoniana. Was of opinion it would not sucker. It was tlio habit of improved blackberries not to sucker. All leading seedsmen stocked R. Lawtoniana. Mr Nolan said all witnesses admitted that li. Lawtoniana was a blackberry and that it was an offspring of B. Fruticosis. The intention of the Act was to keep down all blackberries. In tlio present case the defendant had blackberries (R. Lawtoniana) oil his property which liad not been treated to the satisfaction of tho Inspector. That was a clear offence under tlio Act. Mr Coleman ran over tho evidence for tho defence, contending that nothing had been adduced to show that tho defendant came under tho Act. The S.M. reserved judgment. FACTORY ACCIDENTS Tlio re-hearing of tho case Inspector of Factories (Mr J. W. Nolan) v. Evans, Noilil and Co., (Mr Alston Coleman), recently ordered was taken. Mr Coleman said lie would admit now that defendant's sawmill was a factory. Ho contended that the amendment of 1907 did not properly cover tho case of a place like Gisborne where there was no medical authority. Tlio section needed to be more explicit. Mr Nolan said that properly the liotieo to the medical authority was not necessary as from the factory owu-