FILTHY ORCHARD

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 613, 15 March 1929, Page 16

FILTHY ORCHARD

DANGER OF INFECTION BIRKDALE MAN FINED The dangers faced by orchardists growing fruit for export when their property was adjacent to other orchards infected with codlin moth was stressed at the Magistrates Court this morning by Cecil Gibson, an orchard inspector. Edwin William Clay appeared on summons to answer a charge of failing to clear an orchard of disease. Asked to plead, defendant said that he had been 15 years in Birkdale, and had always taken a stand against excessive spraying. He did not believe in the coercion of orchardists to spray with that deadly poison, arsenic. The department exhorted growers to kill the pests without worrying about the consumer of the fruit. Clay complained that he had been given no opportunity of seeing the officer who had made the inspection of his orchard, as he had been away from home on each occasion. "I believe that codlin moth can be controlled by other means than spraying with arsenic,” concluded defendant. Mr. F. 11. Levien, S.M.: That is probably why you are here to-day. Mr. Gibson described Clay as a dairyman. He owned about three acres of orchard, which he registered each year, but was not able to sell his fruit, as the orchard was in such a filthy condition. "When I called,” continued the inspector, "the fruit was too far gone for spraying, and I left a notice for the infected fruit to be destroyed.” Orchardists who had property nearby, and were growing for export, had the greatest difficulty in keeping the moth out of their fruit owing to the neglect of defendant and other peole, whose orchards were in a similar state. "To my knowledge, this orchard has never been sprayed,”* added Mr. Gibson. Clay: I think this man is committing perjury. Mr. Levien: That is a serious charge. A somewhat involved argument ensued between Clay and the inspector about the alleged dangers of spraying with arsenic, and the apparently doubtful advantages of dormant sprays. This discussion was finally interrupted by the magistrate, who made it clear that he was not personally interested in the manner of eradicating orchard pests. He was convinced by defendant’s own remarks that he had failed to fulfil his obligations as far as spraying^’was concerned. Clay was fined £l, and ordered to cut down his orchard or clean it out.

"If you come up again, the fine may surprise you,” was Mr. Levien’s parting remark.