RAGWORT ON LAND

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 84, 8 April 1936, Page 13

RAGWORT ON LAND

FAILURE TO CLEAR

SEVERAL FARMERS FINED

The presence of ragwort on land at Horokiwi, Maungaraki, Korokoro, and Normandale led to a number of farmers and others appearing in the Petone Court today charged with failing to keep their land clear of ragwort. Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., was on the bench.

Mr. William Wilson prosecuted for the Department of Agriculture.

In the case of William O'Malley, Mr. Wilson said that he was the occupier of a property of 139 acres at Horokiwi. On October 3 a notice was sent to him under the Noxious Weeds Act to have the land cleared by December 31. An inspection was made on February 24, and it was found that practically the whole of the land was infested with ragwort. All the plants were in flower or seed. Any ragwort that had been cut was left lying around. O'Malley had been fined for having ragwort on his land in 1934 and 1935.

Mr. G. Findlay, who entered a plea of guilty for O'Malley, said that, he had a constant struggle to keep his land clear, and he was doing his best.

Mr. Wilson pointed out that the Unemployment Board gave a substantial subsidy to men employed in cutting ragwort. Local bodies where land was clear made strong complaints about the prevalence of ragwort in this district. The Magistrate remarked that' the cutting of ragwort was a suitable work for the unemployed. A fine of £7 was imposed, and Mr. Lawry said that if O'Malley came before him again he would have to fine him the maximum amount. In the case of Robert James Cain, Mr. Wilson said he was the occupier of land at Horokiwi, and when an inspection was made on February 24 about twenty acres was found to be badly infested. A quantity of the weed had been cut and burnt. Cain said in defence that he had cleared as much of the land as he could. A fine of £2 was imposed. ' In the case against Lionel Douglas Nairn, it was stated that he had about 136 acres at Horokiwi. Scattered plants of ragwort were found in all the hollows when an inspection was made on February 24. There was no sign of any work having been done, but there was some cut ragwort in a shed. Nairn stated that all the ragwort was cleared on January 10, and what grew up afterwards was cleared on February 24 and 25. The fine imposed was 30s. Mr. G. Findlay entered a plea of guilty on behalf of William Alexander McGregor. Mr. Wilson said that McGregor had a property of 39 acres at Maungaraki. When an inspection was made on February 25 a considerable number of ragwort plants were found to be flowering, but some ragwort had been cut and left lying on the ground. The defendant had been before the Court twice before. The defence was that a man had been cutting ragwort on the defendant's land for two months, but it had not been burnt. A fine of £7 was imposed. In the case of Thomas Charles Haines, Mr. Wilson said he had 19 acres at Korokoro. Some plants were cut and lying on the ground, but others were still in flower. The defence was that the land had been infested from a neighbouring property, but some ragwort had been cut. The defendant was fined 10s. The evidence in the charge against William Henry Riggin was that when en inspection was made on February 26 three acres at Normandale were found to be badly infested. Riggin said he cleared his land on receipt of his notice, but the ragwort grew up again between then and the time of the inspection. He was fined £1.