NO EVIDENCE OF THEFT

Evening Post, Issue 47, 23 August 1935, Page 16

NO EVIDENCE OF THEFT

LIME MIXED WITH GRAIN

CHANGES DISMISSED

t (By Telegraph—Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, August 22.

Allegations that he had mixed agricultural lime in wheat and barley which he had crushed for farmers were made, by the police against Melbourne Thomas Wheeler, mill owner in, the Magistrate's Court. Wheeler ••pleaded not guilty to three charges, two of theft of wheat and one of theft of barley. The amounts involved m the respective charges were 13s fed, Bs, and 4s, from Edward O'Neill, John James Burrows, and William John James.- ' ■ •

Sub-Inspector D. A. Mac Lean said f thafc the case was one of the most peculiar ever to come before the .Court. The farmers who had sent •wheat and barley to Wheeler's mill for crushing had found that the animals on their farms would not eat meal made from the crushed material A detective had gone to the mill and four samples of material crushed by accused had been taken to the Government Analyst. His tests had shown four samples to contain respectively 18.1 per cent., 28.9 per cent., 20.6 per cent., and 23.7 per cent, of agricultural lime. Lime was very ■ much cheaper than either wheat or barley, and the police accusation was that by putting in lime the accused was stcalingsomc of: the grain; l George Arthur Swanston, an assist

ant at the mill, said that lime, was not mixed with all.the wheat and,barley that came to the mill. He gave de-tails-of the methods used at the mill.

To Mr. R. M. Hill, for the defence] he said that a test with three sacks of barley had shown that 421b in weight was lost as a result of crushing. None of the meal sent in was kept back. F. J. T. Grigg, an analyst, gave evidence of tests he had made of four samples'. The lime was evenly mixed. He .had not before heard of ground limestone in animal feed. If an ' animal, could be induced to eat the food containing lime the effect would be harmful.' If the meal ' was to •be cooked- for human food the effect would be still more harmful.

Mr. E. .C. Levvey, S.M., said that from the evidence of Swahston none of the grain was kept back. The adding of a deleterious substance to grain might be a :ground for civil action, but it was not evidence of- thpft and the charges would accordingly bo dismissed.