LIME IN STOCK FOOD

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 23 August 1935, Page 4

LIME IN STOCK FOOD

FARMERS’ ALLEGATIONS MILLER CHARGED WITH THEFT “MOST PECULIAR CASE” (By Telegrapn—Frees Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, Aug. 22. Allegations that he had mixed agricultural} dhne in wheat and barley which he had crushed for farmers were made by the police against Melbourne Thomas Wheeler, a millrowner, in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. Wheeler pleaded not guilty to three charges, two of theft, of wheat and one of theft of barley, the amounts involved in the respective charges being 13s 6d, 8s and 4s from Edward C/Nei;U, John -Janijesi Burrows (and William John James.

Sub-Inspector 11. A. Mac Lean said that the case was one of the most peculiar ever to copie before a court. Farmers who had sent wheat and barley to Wheeler’s mill for crushing had found that animals on their farms would not eat the meal made from the crushed material.

A detective had gone to the mill and four samples of the material crushed by Wheeler had been taken to the Government analyst. His tests had shown the four samples to contain respectively i,IS.X per cent., 2S.S per cent., 20.6 per cent., and 23.7 per cent, of agricultural lime. Lime was very much cheaper than either wheat or barley and the police accusation was that by putting in lime heeler was stealing some of the grain. v George Arthur Swanston, an assistant of the mill, said that lime was not mixed with all wheat and barley that came to the mill. He gave details of the method used at the mill. To Mr. R. M. Hill, for the defence, he said that a test with three sacks of barley had shown that 421 b. in weight was lost as a result of crushing. None of the meal sent in was kept back. F. J. T. Grigg, an analyst, gave evidence of the tests he had made of four samples. The time was evenly mixed. He had not before heard of ground limestone in animal feed. If an animal could be induced to eat the food containing lime the effect would be harmful. If the meal was to bo cooked for human food the effect would be still more harmful. . Mr E-. C. Levvey, S.M., said that from the evidence of Swanston, none of the grain was kept back. The addng of a deleterious substance to the grain might be ground for civil action but it was not evidence of theft and the charges would accordingly he dismissed.