Orchard Inspector Sued.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 October 1922, Page 4

Orchard Inspector Sued.

COMPULSORY DESTRUCTION OF TKKES. AUCKLAND, Oct. 3. The first c;isc of its hind heurd in the Dominion under the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, 1008, was commenced at the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Herdman and a special jury of four. George Herbert Guy, a linolypist, and the owner of an orchard at Henderson, sued John H. Collard. Inspector of Orchards, Auckland, in that hot.tveen February 1/ and March 31, 1922, defendant wrongfully cut down 170 fruit trees in the orchard and therefore diminished the value of the land hy not less than C4OO, foi which amount and ,CSO general damages, judgment was sought. The defence practically amounted to a reply that the inspector, between the dates, mentioned, had caused to he destroyed certain diseased apple and fruit trees on the land, in exercise of the [sneers conferred upon him hy the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, and was protected in such action by virtue of Section 13 of the Act. As defendant relied on the Act for indemnification, the case for the defence was taken first. Counsel for the defence addressed the Court at length on the provisions o/ the Act, ami asserted that the defendant not only allowed his orchard to'become a serious danger in the district, blit was given every opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Act, and did not do so, hut openly flouted the inspector and the Department.

His Honour: The defence is that defendant is a departmental officer, acting under authority? Air Johnston (for plaintiff): This Act only authorises him to do acts deemed necessary. That is the crux of the

Air Patterson ("for the defence): The Act gives him power and makes him sole judge to do what he thinks fit. Defendant gave evidence as to the condition of the orchard since December. 1919. Several notices were sent asking plaintiff fo clean up his orchard and comply with the Act. Plaintiff replied that it was diffiuclt fo ect men to do the work, and witness ofTered to find men. In January of this year, following a complaint., witness visited the orchard and found it in a disgraceful condition, there firing no one oil tfie property, which was three acres in extent. Subsenuenlly some steps were taken hy plaintiff, hut defendant was not satisfied.

To bi“ Honor: The only effective wav was to destroy tfie infected parts and fruit absolutely. Only flic infected parts and fruit were destroyed. The 170 trees for the most, purl were cut atmvc the first fork, which would enable grading to fie done, and give n clean orchard and a belter class of apple. Al.r Johnston, for plaintiff, said that evidence would show that only one disease existed in t lie orchard, and that was cndlin moth. If there were other diseases, as suggested, they must have been present in negligible ouantitics, and not such as would justify tfie destruction of the tn'es. Guy had, from tfie time he acquired the orchard in 1919, employed labour and spent money on the place, and in two seasons had sp'nt Howards of Cl Of) in draining, ploughing, spravinpr and generally improving the orchard. Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines ul counsel’s address; AVI,on he received the first notice from the Department work was going on on the place. Peiciving another notice in 1921, he undertook to spray, and in January last, the work was done, to a certain

extent. This spraying continued tilt the day before the Department’s officers called Ic> cut down certain Does, ij . },j U l assured defendant that none of :ie iruit would l.e raid. Two-thirds ot lie apnle trees wre cut down. Inspector (' Hard suhsecpiently said that the dcstruclion was for codlin moth. The ease was adjourned.