SUPREME COURT Farmer claims $5040 for loss of stock

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32706, 8 September 1971, Page 10

SUPREME COURT Farmer claims $5040 for loss of stock

the hearing of a claim for $6040 from the Parnassus Pest Destruction Board for 360 sheep which allegedly died from 1080 poison, laid by the board to destroy rabbits, began in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Wilson. The hearing will continue today. The plaintiff, Paul David Homdon Bush, a farmer, of Parnassus, is represented by Messrs P. T. Mahon, Q.C., and A. Forbes. Mr C. B. Atkinson appears for the board, which denies that it is liable and that, the sheep were killed by 1080 poison. Mr Mahon said it was contended that the board had no proper system of regulating the restocking of land after poisoning operations and that an employee of the board who inspected the property should have known of possible stock I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i I I I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! I

losses and warned the plain-1 tiff. i Mr Bush said in evidence that he ran sheep and cattle on a property at Parnassus known as lona. He had been a member of the defendant board for some years. In June, 1969, the boara’s staff carried out poisoning on his property M destroy rabbits. Carrots, treated with 1080 poison, were spread by ait on three blocks of his proK. In previous years rabjisoning was carried out on his property by hand. Before the poisoning was carried out the witness removed the. stock from the blocks to be poisoned. The work was carried out in June. Return of stock ■ After about three weeks ; the carrots disappeared. The i block consisted of reasonI ably steep tussock country. About 85 points.of rain had fallen in the area during the month before July 15, when die stock was put back on the ■ block. i On July 22 he was in i Christchurch when he was in- < formed by telephone that 1 rabbiters had found dead and flying sheep on the block I and that they had helped his i men to shift the sheep to an- < other block. j The next day he inspected t the block and found dead s sheep scattered all over it and other sheep dying. There ] were 1800 sheep on the block j of about 170 acres. A total , of 360 sheep died. It was | about six weeks before he j again put sheep on the block. | To Mr Atkinson the wit- j ness said that he had been a ( member of the defendant ( board for about 12 years and , at the time he lost the stock, he was chairman of the board., "Understanding” < The witness agreed that ] there was an understanding | in the district that, after land i had been poisoned, the owner, if he wished to return ( stock to the land, should; check With the foreman Or < the board first. The foreman j would then - inspect the land < and pass an opinion whether > it was safe to return stock, j The Witness said he did not i agree that the board - could I not stop a landowner putting i stock back on his own land. He thought that the' board had power to make him take the stock off. lona had a potentially serious rabbit problem. Mr Atkinson: Would you agree that, by comparison ( with some of the other j property owners’ land, the i board over the years has done i more work on lona by way of shooting and poisoning? ; The Witness: In relation to ■ similar country, no; in rela- < tion to large areas of the j board, yes. The Witness agreed that he 1 was anxious to get the. stock J back on the land as soon as i possible because he was short 1 Of feed. He had no recoUSC* | tion of any of his employees trying to talk him out of i returning sheep to the block, i By July 15 he was satisfied I that it was safe to return die i

sheep because he could see no sign of carrots. He made that decision without refer* ence to any officer or employee of the board. Case for defence s Opening the case for the defence, Mr Atkinson submitted that the plaintiff had placed no reliance on the skill, judgment, and advice of the board’s officers, and it was not suggested that there was any other negligence on the part of the board. The plaintiff, a senior member of the board, had used his own skill and judgment to replace the stock and when he mentioned what he had done at the first opportunity—the board meeting on July 17—the foreman expressed surprise that the stock had been returned so early. It seemed fairly clear on the plaintiff’s own evidence that he did not check with the board or that he did not check the stock carefully enough or frequently j enough after he had replaced them. i Evidence would be given i by the defendant that it did i not approve of returning | stock within such a short i period—slightly more than i three weeks, Mr Atkinson I said. 1 Raymond Hugh Register, a 1 livestock instructor employed i by the Department of Agri-1 culture, said that he joined the board in June, 1969. At I the meeting of July 17 the 1 foreman of the board, Mr' Giles, had expressed surprise ’ that Mr Bush had restocked : the block. The witness had' conducted post-mortem exam- 1 inations on a number of the sheep, but he was unable to; determine the cause of death. Most of the digestive systems contained no observable carrots. < To Mr Mahon the witness said he agreed that 1080, poisoning was not commonly , detectable on analysis of. post-mortem samples in the, case of sheep and dogs. A, small dose of 1080 was lethal. There was no known , antidote. There could have i been partly digested carrot in i every paunch. ]