SOWING OF FLAX-SEED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 460, 15 September 1928, Page 12

SOWING OF FLAX-SEED

COMPANY SUFFERS LOSS CLAIM AGAINST FARMERS Careless sowing of flax seeds in a nursery by Thorp Bros., farmers, Paeroa, was alleged in the Supreme Court this morning to have caused heavy loss to Hauraki Flax Growers, Ltd. The company, through Mr. Holmden, claimed £I,OOO general damages and £338 special, stating they had lost a year’s profits, 3001 b. of seed valued at 20s a lb., the services of their manager for two months and lease charges of the nursery.

In evidence, George Crow, manager of the plaintiff company, said the concern was floated in February, 1927. After great trouble he had collected 3001 b. of rare seed, from which to stock the flax lands. He arranged with the defendants to lease nine acres as a nursery. They were to plough in July, 1927. A month later no ploughing had been done. One man had been ill and left it to his brother. Fielden Thorp said his brother might have made an agreement, but-he knew nothing of it. He said the ploughing could have been done had an agreement been made. Witness informed him he was telling an untruth in denying an agreement.

Eventually the nine-acre scheme was abandoned and it was agreed that a section of 2£ acres should be ploughed, prepared and sown by defendants. Witness gave specific instructions that the seed was to be sown in drills and not broadcast. However, defendants employed the latter method and sowed only three-quarters of an acre, stating that the seed would not run through the drill. Witness claimed a refund of £49 rental, but defendants contended that their work rendered things about square. Craw expected to raise 5,000,000 plants on the area, but got only a fraction of the number. Regarding the £I,OOO damages, Mr. Justice Reed said it was too remote to hold defendants responsible for all the loss of profits suffered by the company from the failure of the crop. Cross-examined by Mr. Tuck, witness said that the crop would have been satisfactory, despite the dry summer, had the seed been sown properly. Counsel said that the reply was that the failure of the crop was due to the number of weeds on the land and to the very dry season. Plaintiffs had suggested that defendants had removed for their own use a quantity of the seed and had later taken young plants. His Honour said this suggestion was the most serious feature of the case, it being alleged that defendants virtually stole the seed. Mr. Tuck said the reply was that the only two bags taken were old seed considered of no value. Both the defendants denied they had removed any of the flax plants, except a handful which they tested to see if they would transplant. Hearing was adjourned until Monday afternoon.