DISTRICT COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 167, 20 April 1871, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before lis ffnour Mr. Justice Grey.) Monday, April 17.

BREACH OF THE SCAB ORDINANCE. Murray v. Smith. — Mr. Copland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Gooday for defendant. Mr. Copland stated that the object of this action was to recover a sum in. the name of damages for the encroachment or

trespassing of defendant's sheep, diseased with scab. The sums specified in the bill of particulars amounted to the sum of £435, or thereabouts, but Mr. Murray had reduced the amount to £200.

Mark Dale, District Sheep Inspector, said — 1 was at Mr. Murray's on the 14t,h May last. I saw two sheep in Mr. Murray's yard. Those sheep belonged to Mr. J. Smith. They were infected with disease called scab. 1 saw some hoggets also infected. I understood Mr. Murray was to take his sheep to Mr. Smith's to be dipped there. On account of those two sheep being there, it would entail the necessity of dipping the whole flock. The scab is very infectious. It varies in the time of making its appearance — sometimes 14 or 16 days, often three weeks or a month. The generali yof Mr. Murray's sheep were in good condition. If the dipping is properly done, and the material properly mixed it does not materially effect the condition of the sheep.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — The first time the sheep were dressed was on the 18th i\lay. They ought to have been taken a second time within a fortnight. I did not observe any of Mr. Murray's sheep infected with scab. I should have detected it if they were infected. The preparation used by Mr. Smith for dipping was sulphur and lime. A part of Mr. Murray's sheep were in good condition as fat sheep. I should not have refused Mr. Murray permission to move those sheep Diseased sheep a^e generally dressed twice within 14 clays.

Re-ex.imined by Mr. Copland— One good dressing is sufficient, if properly done.

James Cameron said —Mr. Murray came to me and informed me that two of Mr. Smith's scabby sheep were amongst his flock. Mr. Murray's sheep were generally in good condition. They appeared in the same condition after dressing as they appeared previously. Sometimes damage occurrs from dressing sheep, and the wool is materially injured. It will also injure the sheep in the lambing season, depreciating the produce.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — I was in Mr. Smith's employ for five years. I cannot say if Mr. Maitland's sheep were infected with scab. Mr. Murray's sheep were partly fat, partly stores. I cannot say how many came to be dipped on the first occasion. It came on a cold wet day. Mr. Murray got into a state of excitement. There was abuse on both sides. I do not remember any special remark made by either party. The effect of lime on wool would be to make it brittle, and shorten the staple. T wrote a letter of apology to Mr. Smith for some improper remarks I had made.

Peter Scott said — I am a shepherd in Mr. Smith's employ. I believe Mr. Smith's sheep were dipped twice or thrice. Mr. Smith's sheep were infected in August and previously. I am not sufficiently skilled as a judge of wool to state if it was injured in the dressing.

James Murray sworn, said — T was present when the two sheep were taken from amongst the ewes and wether flock. They were shown to Air. Dale, who pronounced them scabby. There were living ticks on the sheep after the dressing. If the dressing does not kill the ticks, it woxild not cure the scab. He expected to take a number of the sheep dressed into tho market after the dressing. I left six in the paddock after they were dressed. The crop of lambs- wa3 very small, and below the avem ;e. Linrj injurtj tiie wool, making it very brittle.

Cf i 'S-j-oxauuaed by x.fr. Gooday — I have had great experience amongst sheep. Mr. Maitland came for some of his sheep, but he would not take them, because some of Mr. Smith's scabby sheep had mixed with ours. I saw several dead lambs. I cannot say how many.

Walter Miller, sworn, deposed — The insect ought to die instantly after being dipped. 1 think all insects ought to die at once if the dressing is sufficiently strong. The loss in a good crop of turnips would represent a loss of £L 0 per acre.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — I have had occasion to dip sheep. In every instance the insect died instantly. Sheep will suffer by dressing. If they were fat sheep, I think they would depreciate 3s. per head if placed on poor feed. The average increase is certainly 80 per cent. This year it is 75 per cent. I have seen Mr. Smith's sheep. I consider the wool long, consequently fatiguing to the sheep. My usual time for dipping is one minute.

John Murray, Glenore, said— l know the turnips in question. There are from 25 to 30 acres. To fatten sheep, I value them at £8 per acre. A good dressing would kill the tick at once. I saw a great quantity of dead lambs lying about, evidently of premature birth. There would be a difference of 5s per head between fat and store sheep. 200 lambs to 700 ewes I do not consider half a crop. The dipping would affect the wool both in quality and quantity.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — I consider an acre of turnips would fatten 12 sheep.

W. A. Murray, sworn, (read some correspondence between himself and Mr. Smith) — The sheep were dressed on the 17th of May. My sheep were in good condition previous to dipping. I intended to finish them off on turnips. I had a letter from my agents saying fat sheep were worth 3d per lb. I consider there was 5s per head difference between fat and store sheep. Several of the ewes died, also many of the lambs. The average increase should be 80 per cent. 1 had only 214 lambs from 700 ewes. All .the sheep were damaged in the wool. I heard in May last that Mr. Smith's sheep were diseased. I commenced to muster on the 12th May. I found about 130 of Mr. Smith's sheep. I found two wethers very scabby. I informed Mr. Smith, Mr. Dale, Sheep Inspector, and also Messrs. Maitland. Mr. Dale pronounced the sheep to be scabby. I had a conversation with Mr. Smith. He said no doubt he had scabbed my sheep, and was liable for any injury done. I consider the dressing was of no use, as we found several living ticks upon them after dressing. Mr. Smith said he would make the dressing as strong as I liked. I wrote to Mr. Smith on the 4th of August urging to have the sheep dressed, as I was injuring my sheep, and losing my crop of turnips by the delay. T saw Mr. Maitland's 10,000 ewes. I believe they were clean, Mr. Smith said I was a nuisance

to have anything to do with. He could always deal with other parties, but ho could not deal with me. Mr. Smith said he would get Mr. M'Kay to inspect my sheep, and unless he found sca'i, 1 might take them away again. They found two slightly infected. I do not think the Inspector would have given me a certificate. Mr. Logic refused on one occasion, and Mr. Dale on another, on precisely similar grounds.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — Some portion of my land adjoins Maitland Bros. Maitland's ewes were not supposed to be scabby until September. I have had great experience in sheep for 18 years. When I discovered scab in my sheep, I gave notice to the Inspector, as required by law. I have known some persons have large flocks scabby for four years, and yet not gazetted. I did not apply for a certiiicate because 1 expected the market to rise. Mr. Smith said he would not dip the sheep unless they were proved to be scabby.

•Tuesday, April 18.

The case of Murray v. Smith was continued. Several witnesses ha\ing been examined and cross-examined at length by Mr. Gooday, and Mr. J. Copland having replied to Mr. Gooday's defence, His Honour summed up, and gave judgment for plaintiff — damages, £120, and costs.