KEEPING ORCHARDS CLEAN.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1922, Page 5

KEEPING ORCHARDS CLEAN.

THE POWERS OF AN INSPECTOR. UNUSUAL CLAIM IN COURT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. The first case of its kind heard in the Dominion under the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, 1908, commenced at the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Jus tice Herdman and a special jury of four. George Herbert Guy, a linotypist, and the owner of an orchard at Henderson, sued John W. Collard, inspector of orchards at Auckland, that between February 17 and March, 1922, defendant wrongfully cut down 175 fruit trees In his orchard, and therefore diminished the value of the land by not less than £4OO, for which amount and £5O general damages judgment was sought. The defence practically amounted to the reply that the inspector, between the dates mentioned, had caused to be destroyed certain diseased apple and fruit trees on the land in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, and that he 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 of the Act, and asserted that the defendant not only allowed his orchard to become a serious danger in the district, but was given every opportunity to cnmplv with the provisions of Act and did not do so, hut openly flouted the inspector and the department. His Honor: The defence is that the defendant is a departmental officer actin? under authority.

Mr. Johnston (for plaintiff): The Act I only authorises him to do acts deemed necpßsary. That is the crux of the case. Mr. Patterson (for the defence): The Act gives him power and makes him the 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 to clean up his orchard and comply with the Act. Plaintiff replied that it was difficult to get men to do the work, and witness, offered to find a man. In January this year, following a ,complaint, witness visited the orchard and found it in a disgraceful condition, there being no one on the property, three acres in extent. Subsequently some step? were taken by plaintiff, but defendant was not satisfied. To His Honor he said the only effective way was to destroy infected parts and fruit absolutely. Only infected parts and fruit were destroyed. The U' trees, for the most part, were cut above the first fork, which would enable grafting and give a clean orchard and a better class of apple. The. case was adjourned.