FARMER CLAIMS £1820 FROM COMPANY

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 172, 18 April 1939, Page 10

FARMER CLAIMS £1820 FROM COMPANY

Death Of Sheep Following Dipping PROTRACTED HEARING LIKELY By Telegraph—Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, April 17. Before Mr. Justice Northcroft and a special jury a claim was brought today by Alan Grant, Waimate, sheep-farmer, for £lB2O in special and general damages against Cooper, Macdougall, and Robertson, Ltd., Manchester, sheepdip manufacturers, for alleged injuries to his flock following the use of defendants’ dip. The action is likely to be one of the most protracted heard by the Court for some time. His Honour- told members of the jury that their services would be required till well into next week, if not longer. The action was begun more than four years ago, and the lapse of time before it has come to hearing is an indication of the widespread nature of the inquiries necessary in the preparation of evidence. The cause of the action, according to Mr. W. J. Sim, for plaintiff, was that Grant dipped his stud sheep in a dip manufactured by defendants according to the maker's directions, and some of his sheep were killed. Before rntning to New Zealand in 1913, said Mr. Sim, plaintiff had three times won the premier award for sheepbreeders in Scotland and had, in South Canterbury, built up a famous stud. The dip, of which Grant purchased two live-gallon drums, was advertised as being especially suited for dipping sheep for show or sale, as it was claimed' to'give “bloom” to fleeces. The dipping was done in perfect weather, and Grant followed the manufacturers’ directions, added Mr. Sim. The sequel 1 was catastrophic, . thirty-seven sheep dying, including sixteen stud rams, and 156 were affected. The first to be dipped was a Romney stud ram for which. Grunt hud paid 100 guineas, and this was dead by 7 a.m. next day. A significant fact was that it was the first animal dipped that died, these being unfortunately the valuable stud rams. Animals subset quently dipped suffered but survived. Expert evidence would be called to show that the sheep died from absorption through the skin of phenol and tar acids contained in the dip. Evidence would be called also that the first sheep put into the dip absorbed some of the poisons. Company’s Defence. In the statement of defence filed by the company it was denied that plaintiff’s rams did in fact suffer injury by the absorption of poison from the dipping wash through the skin or that they could suffer injury of that nature and from that cause if the concentrate dip had been diluted and mixed and the rams dipped in accordance with the directions on the labels and with tue reasonable and proper dipping practices of ordinarily prudent sheep-farm-ers. To dip rams in high condition or when the weather was unsuitable was contrary to the reasonable and properpractice of prudent sheep-farmers and negligent, as involving risks of injury through the dipping operation but not from the constituents or strength ot the dipping wash. The company claimed also that it was not responsible in law for injuries sustained by plaintiff’s rams because of the natural effects of the dapping operation but' independently of the composition, strength or quality of the concentrate dip, or injuries sustained while in a high, unsuitable condition of health, or in unsuitable weather, erroneous or inefficient mixing of the dipping wash or disregard of the makers’ directions or any default contrary to the usual and approved practices of prudent sheep-farmers. Defendants had given to plaintiff adequate warning of all the dangers of which defendants knew or ought to have known that were likely to arise from the proper and careful use of the concentrate dip according to the general and proper practice of sheep-far-mers. The precaution of putting through the dipping bath ordinariflock sheep-first iwas only a safeguard against the consequences of erroneous or inefficient mixing of the dipping wash and the company was not responsible for the consequences, and if plaintiff after erroneously or inefficiently maxing the wash suffered loss caused by his failure to put through flock sheep first defendants were not liable. Evidence was being given by plaintiff when the Court adjourned.