MILKING MACHINE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 293, 10 December 1910, Page 5

MILKING MACHINE CASE.

ALLLGKD INJURY TO COWS. The action between C. Dahl and Co. and Edward Allen, claim of £ 184, cost of milking machine installation, and counter-claim of £290 for alleged injury to cows, was continued before Mr. Justice Edwards <_!nd a special jury of four yesterday afternoon, and the proceedings were resumed this morning.

Two witnesses—A. J. Melville and James Mather —admitted that they were contributing to the cost of the defence, and that they had repudiated their liability for payment of machines because ■they had failed to work satisfactorily. The witness Mather said defendant and Mr. Swayne were the only other two in the syndicate providing the funds for the defence of the present 'action.

A. Glover, M.R.C.Y.S., said he had examined the dairy herds of Mr. Swayne and Mr. Mather in November of this year, and found no traces of disease which would have been apparent had the cows been attacked by contagious mammitis twelve months previously. The •troubles recurring, as described by several witnesses, indicated the presence of non-contagious mammitis.

Under cross-examination, witness stated that a bacteriological examination of milk for detection of disease was practically of no value unless combined with a clinical examination. He claimed to be able to detect by examining milk whether a cow had previously suffered from contagious mammitis, as the general result was that though a cow recovered she would ever afterwards give thick milk.

His Honor: Have you any authority?

Witness replied that lie had had experience of the disease for some 30 years past in the Old Country, though it was not classified as contagious till about nine years ago. He had heard that experiments conducted at Ruakura showed that milk from a cow that had apparently recovered from contagious mammitis appeared to be quite healthy under a clinical examination, but much infected when bacteriologieaUy examined. That was, however, an exception, and would not occur in one case out ol a hundred. This concluded the evidence for the defendant. (Proceeding.) ■