NASSELLA CONTROL

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27639, 21 April 1955, Page 15

NASSELLA CONTROL

WAIPARA FARMER CHARGED CONVICTION WITHOUT PENALTY Albert Edward Herbert, a farmer, of Waipara, was convicted at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, Rangiora, yesterday, before Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., for failing to comply with a notice from the North Canterbury Nassella Tussock Board to clear his property of the tussock. Mr N. H. Buchanan, who appeared for the board, said that when a notice was sent to a farmer he was given the right to appeal, but in this case the defendant had not done so. Herbert had been ordered to clear his property of 2274 acres, which was affected by the tussock. Herbert’s farm was in a strategic position, and his neighbours had made a steadier effort to control the tussock than he had. It was true that he had made some effort to control the menace, but not enough. Colin Thomas White, chairman of the board, said he had inspected the property on Monday and had seen that a substantial amount of work had been done towards dealing with the menace. There was, however, still a lot to be done. He denied a suggestion that the fact that Herbert had appealed against a penalty in a similar case had anything to do with the present case. For the defendant, Mr A. P. Thomp - son said that defendant had used various methods to comply with the board’s notice. Herbert, he said, was regarded as a good farmer, and in an endeavour to get the tussock under control had had to neglect other farming operations. Counsel submitted that defendant had been pursued by the board, Which, he held, had not cooperated with him. Defendant had done all that was humanly possible to deal with the position. The Magistrate said that it was clear a number of farmers were concerned : by nassella tussock and it was likely that their land would be affected for a long time. The board had a duty to do, and he was not going to believe that it would deliberately sort one man out and not others. The defen- > dant was before the Court in October ’ last and was convicted and fined £2O. , He appealed against the sentence but not against (the conviction, so the ■ Court was able to deal with the pres- ; ent case. The Court would suggest to : Herbert and other farmers that they should try to comply with notices from ’ the board.

As a gesture to defendant, who had done what he should have done, although late, the Court would convict him and order him to pay costs. It should be understood, n£wever, that this was not to be regarded as a precedent.