THE SCAB CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XIII, Issue 1049, 15 March 1879, Page 2

THE SCAB CASE.

Sib, — After looking over your article, an** 1 Mr Franois Hick's letter re the lale alleged scab case. I find a few statem- nts not quite oorrect. Mr Hicks says, " lias Mr Lewis forgotten that the sheep he condemned were pronounced free from scab, by Mr Runciman." This reads as if Mr Runciman had inspected my sheep, just previous to Mr Lewis condemning them, whereas, Mr Runciman examined the remainder of my flock, just after Mr Lewis had condemned the lot sent to Aucldand. As regards Fergusson, you say, "Mr Jolly : endeavored to interview Fergusson, but, unsuccessfully." I saw Fergusson at Panmure, about a month since, and read over the printed evidence to him. (The old man had not his spectacles, and asked me to read it.) He positively denied that he either saw, or said he saw a living insect m the sheep, and promised to ratify this assertion before a magistrate, on the following day. Instead, however, of doing so, he wrote to say, after due consideration, he could not alter his evidence, as given m the Police Court. Every one to his own opinion on this matter. I have mine. And, so, because this man, Fergusson, is reported to have seen what no one else saw, the Club throw up my case. I thank them for their sympathy, but regret it does not take a more demonstrative form. What is the use of symphthy without support? I beg to remind the Club that, at their solicitation, I brought the matter befove them, and had their cordial assurance of support. The result was the petition. True, lam not a Cambridge farmer, or a shining luminary m agricultural matters, but, as a Waikato settler, after placing the matter m their hands, I did not think they would desert at the eleventh hour. All we wanted and expected of them was, their influence to have this long promised commission of enquiry held. There are many features m this case I should like everyone to know. Take, for instance, the action of the Bench, about the skin of the scabby sheep. During the adjournment, hearing we had the skin, the magistrates expressed a desire to see it. It was produced, and Mr Lewis tried, m vain, to find the great scab, " as big as the palm of his hand, as hard as a board, &c." When the case was resumed, the skin, after being duly identified by Mr Lewis, as the skin, was brought forward. The Bench refused it as evidence. After having had, as it were, a private inspection, seeing Air Lewis's dilemma, having seen with their own eyes this great scab was not there, they would not allow ue to produce it m evidence. Is this justice? is it not more Uka a game of cards, knowing your adversary has the trump, and refusing to play? The plea was, it was too far decomposed, although Mr Lewis had previously testified he could find the insect m the skin, if he had time. Howard said, he could find it a twelvemonth after the sheep was killed. Mr Roskruge and Mr Joseph May testified that the skin was m a favorable condition to detect such an uninistakea,hle scan as that sworn to by witnesses. Again, why were not the depositions read over. If this had been done, such a mistake aa Fergusson' s could aot have oocurred. I went into this affair honestly, employed the best counsel, and have been treated as a rogue. I hope my brother farmers will profit by my experience, and if they ever get into similar trouble, will not defend the case, even if others -jnay be involved. It is far cheaper \o, eat dirt, if you do lose your self respect. "So long as thou doesfc well unto thyself, men will speak good of thee " •■.nd, above all things, dc not roly upon the Cambridge Farmers* Club to help you out of the mire. I wish, also, sir, to dvaw the attention of the Club and tho general favming community to what oame lately under my personal observation. A few weeks sinoe, a flock of sheep came to tho Hamilton Station Yards, were there inspected by Mr Runciman, and condemned as having liee — lice being tveated tho same as scab by the* new Sheop Act. I want to know why the ownev of these sheep was not dragged to a Police Court, and fined for suffering sheep infected with lice to be driven some twenty miles on the highway ? — why the Hamil*. ton Station Yards should be selected as the place for their inspection, to the possible injury of others using those yards ? — and why they were not examined before they left the owner's farm, as the Act directs ? I want to know, also, if these sheep were dipped ?*~and if not, why not? I feel interested m these sheep, and wait for enlightenment. How was it done? — what is the triokP Of course, I have any amount of sympathy with their owner, but hope, if my statement is OQivreet, to have a more satisfactory answer than that these sheop belonged to Maclean •& Co.— -I am, &0., Thomas Jolly,