ABSORPTIVE POISONING

Wairarapa Times-Age, 3 May 1939, Page 3

ABSORPTIVE POISONING

death of sheep. PLAINTIFF AWARDED DAMAGES IN DIP CASE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 2. Fiiiding that plaintiff’s sheep were killed by absorptive poisoning and that there was negligence on the part of defendant, a special jury in the Supreme Court today awarded Alan Grant, Waimate, stock breeder, special damages of £B2l 2s and general damages of £lOOO, the full amounts claimed against Cooper, MacDougall and Robertson, Ltd, Glasgow, sheep-dip manufacturers. The jury took five hours and a quarter lb reach a decision of whether or not the sheep were killed by absorptive poisoning, and, assuming this, a unanimous verdict on the remaining seven points Of fact. The case, which has been heard be-, fore Mr Justice Northcroft, has taken 12 days, and at the end of today’s sitting Was adjourned. fbT consideration between parties of the jury’s findings. Counsel’s summing up was heard on Monday, today being occupied by his Ildnour’s summing up and the deliberations of the jury. His Honour congratulated the jury at the Conclusion of the base, arid excused its members from jury service for two years. The claiin was for damages suftered when 37 of plaintiff's stud and flock rams died, allegedly from absorptive poisoning, and 159 other sheep were depreciated in value after being dipped in dip inanufactured by the company. Points submitted to the jury and the jury’s answers were: — (1) Was the injury to plaintiff's rams caused by (a) absorptive poisoning? or (b) inhaling the dip? or (c) chilly incurred subsequent to dipping? br (d) a combination of any of these if so, which? Answer: “AbsorjDti've poisoning.” (2) If the injury to the rams was caused by (a) absorptive poisoning, or (b) absorptive poisoning in conjunction with any other cause, was defendant. negligent in failing to warn plaintiff against that risk? Answer: “Yes.” (3) Were the instructions on the label inadequate or defective? Answer: “Yes.” (4) If the instructions on the label were inadequate or defective, was this due to negligence on the part of defendant? Answer: “Yes.” . i (5) If the instructions on the label were inadequate or defective, was this the cause of damage to the plaintiff’s rains? Ariswet: “Yes.” (6) Was the dip prepared by plain--LifT ill- accordance with the directions on the label? Answer: “No, but in our opinion the dip was satisfactorily prepared.” (7) Were dipping operations conducted iii accordance with the direc l tioris on the label? Answer: “No.” . (81 Were the dipping operations of plaintiff conducted with ronsonablb care and skill? Answer: “Yes.” The full amount of special damages claimed, £B2l 2s, and the full amount of general damages, £lOOO, were awarded to jilairitifL , .