Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Decision On Stock Mixture Upheld

(New Zealana Press Association* PALMERSTON NORTH, August 16. The decision of the Stock Remedies Registration Board in declining an application for registration of a stock-lick additive of phenotliiazine and tobacco dust by Agricultural and Livestock Services, Ltd., of Christchurch. was upheld by Mr D. G. Sinclair. S.M.. in the Magistrate's Court at Palmerston North today.

The Magistrate said the Court hearing had been more in tlie nature of a re-hearing of the application for registration. Much evidence by farmers of their use of tlie additive, had not been known to the board at the time it had tried to reach a reasonable decision. It had declined the application on the grounds that the materia] was of no value for tlie purpose 10 which it was to be put, ant! that it did not comply with the board’s standards of dosing with phet ithiazine. The appellant's material could be regarded as something for sale, but that did not make it a stock lick. If the board's grounds were that it was a stock lick, the Court would reverse that decision. The label for the mixture, and the appellant Stanley as manager of the firm, appeared to have undue optimism regarding the capabilities of the product. The board's contention that the mixture had no value meant that it did not come up to a reasonable standard in the use to which it was to be put. The Magistrate said the board had satisfied him that, in the circumstances, it could reasonably have arrived at its decision. The Magistrate suggested that as the board was one which affected the rights of individuals, applicants should be given the opportunity to be heard in those cases where the board intended to oppose applications, as did other administrative bodies

such as licensing committees and land settlement bodies The applicant could then apply again to the board and present the evidence of farmers who had been helped After such a procedure, the applicant would get some sense of satisfaction at tlie decision.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19630817.2.171

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30212, 17 August 1963, Page 14

Word Count
340

Decision On Stock Mixture Upheld Press, Volume CII, Issue 30212, 17 August 1963, Page 14

Decision On Stock Mixture Upheld Press, Volume CII, Issue 30212, 17 August 1963, Page 14

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert