LAND STOCK & CROPS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLI, Issue 9290, 11 August 1920, Page 2

LAND STOCK & CROPS

(By "The Tramp.")

A case of interest" to agriculturists was heard before Mr J E. Wilson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court at Auckland recently, when Frank M. Winstbne, grain and produce merchant (Mr 'J. Stanton), was charged with having sold-to the informant, Thomas Hurley Patterson, inspector of fertilisers, a quantity of grass manure, the invoice certificate of which was at variance with the true particulars of the fertiliser, such variance being materially to the prejudice of the purchaser, under Section 17C of the Fertilisers Act, 1908.

Mr S. Mays, who appeared for the Agricultural Department, said that in February last the informant took an unofficial sample of the manure and submitted it to the Department analyst. As a result of the report an official sample .was taken in April, and the analysis of the sample showed a material deficiency in the nitrogenous element. At least eight bags of manure were sampled, and in each case the samples were taken from various portions 'of the contents. It was a commercially bad mixture, as a farmer ■did not expect to have his grass flourishing in'bne part,and the rest practically bare. A certain balance of fertilising materials' must be , obtained to yield the beat results. The farmer had very little protection, as he did not know of the failure of a manure until months after the purchase, when his crops appeared. Many 'reasons were then advanced for the unsatisfactory result, and it was therefore clearly the duty of the Department to check it before the sale. The defendant had time enough between February arid April to rectify his mixing machine. The ingredients were fine enough to pass through a drill, and the samples from at least eight baas should have given a fair average. While not referring to the present defendant, it was necessary to state that, in view of the great world-wide shortage of fertilisers and* the present demand, there was a great temptation to adulterate them.

Counsel for the defence, while admitting the offence under the Act. maini tamed that the bulk was not deficient in tbe quantity .of nitrogen. The defendant had been engaged in the business for the past 13 years, having succeeded his uncle. He had been in the habit. of revising his registrations in. June of each year. At the time of the last registration in June, .1919. the nitrogenous dement was supplied by animal nitrogenous manure, which was capable of being'reduced to a very fine powder. Toward the end of last'year the sliortage of blood and bone manure became acute, and although defendant bought 50 tons in Australia and chartered a vessel "to shiD it, he could not obtain delivery. It was therefore necessary to use nitrate of soda fronr Chile. The soda was in a crystal form, and as this had not been anticipated, the shipment at the end of March did not crush and mix readily. with the other ingredients. The Fertilisers Act did not require a standard, •but required a- certified statement of ingredients. The manure was not inferior, as was proved by about 50 testimonials from farmers who praised the particular brand in question. Defendant was anxious to establish the fact that there was no fraud, deception, or supply of inferior goods. The manures were, not sold by analysis, and the defendant's travellers had provedby experience' that the analysis was not discussed by the farmers, and did not help to sell the goods. In fact, not'one in 100 would bother about or understand the analysis. As soon as the analysis was complete defendant altered the mixture.

The Magistrate said he was quite prepared to deal with'the offence as a case of an invoice made without knowledge that the goods did not comply with the certificate. There was a strong obligation on the part of the vendor to be certain that the goods complied with '„ the certificate, and counsel for the prosecution had put it strongly when he said the farmers were unable to prove the worth of the manure until perhaps it was tod late. In this case he.would accept the explanation that no attempt had been made to substitute an inferior ingredient for a dearer one. By some means the crystals had not been ground fine enough to mix with the other ingredients, but it was an obligation on the part" of the vendor to make sure that the mixture was correct, as the matter was so serious to farmers. The defendant was' convicted and fined £5 and costs (£1 8s). . - ,

■It would be interesting, to, know whether the inspector of fertilisers, had paid a visit to Canterbury, and, if so, the result of his investigations Either farmers in this province have not benefited by the protection afforded by. his activities, or his aiialyses have shown that fertilisers here are according to certificate. In the latter case, it would be a satisfaction to buyers to know that the mixture was according to specification, arid also to sellers to know that farmers are aware that they are getting what they paid for. It is just as important, therefore, to publish the names of manures found true to analysis as to prosecute the delinquents. There would also be a greater inducement on the part of manure mixers to obtain exactitude in their mixing and see that,the various components are properly distributed over the whole. Under the eye of an inspector the temptation referred to above to adulterate manures would be suicidal, and the^ actual business inducement to be certified correct would be of the greatest.

Counsel for the defence was rather "hard on 99 out of 100 farmers when he said "not one in 100 would bother about or understand the analysis." Of course, it may be presumed that he was talking about farmers in the Auckland province, which may account for this astonishing—and unchallengedstatement.. "The Tramp" believes that the standard of . intelligence, is higher in tins County, otherwise one is forced to conclude that all this talk about scientific farming, soil survey and analysis, and agricultural science is so much, hypocrisy put on to hide ignorance. As a matter of fact, farmers study their soils so as to ascertain what prescription in the way of manure or tillage or .lime will strengthen its weakness. It would be absurd to go to this trouble if: the farmer then went and bought manures "in a poke," so to speak. It may therefore be assumed that "counsel for the defence" was, fitting arguments +,o suit his case—a 1 losing case at thai.