RAGWORT PROSECUTIONS

Matamata Record, Volume XIX, Issue 1788, 3 December 1936, Page 7

RAGWORT PROSECUTIONS

AT PUTARURU COURT A ‘ ‘ Dangerous Property ’ ’ The ragwort-infested condition of an unimproved section of about 100 acres led to a prosecution against the absentee owner, Alice Maud Cunningham, of Auckland. The inspector said that in September there was ample evidence of last season’s seeding on the property, which ran between two other cleaner farms. There was then no evidence of treatment, and though two notices had been sent out the position became rapidly worse. Mr. Mason pressed the point that this was a dangerous area. Defendant was fined £5 and costs.

Nb Penalty Imposed

Blossie Liddington, appearing for herself and husband, pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to keep their farm at Tokoroa free from ragwort. The inspector said the property contained 28 acres. He had found about 15 acres at one end badly infested, and defendants promised' to have the weed in control by the end of October. He later found no evidence of chemical treatment, though two acres had been chipped but were growing again. Later still the weed was found in large growth, and some even flowering.

Mrs. Liddington said they had done as much as possible. They had tried to obtain sodium from the County Council, but found this was not possible, and were therefore getting it from their dairy company. There now remained only under an acre to be cleared by chipping. They could not afford labour. Defendants were convicted and discharged.

Information Dismissed

Neglect was alleged against James Berkeley Anderson respecting his property at Okoroire. Mr. Mason said this property had about 90 acres in pasture. Eagwort seeded there greatly last season, and the property \ was in a similar condition this year, there being little evidence of control.

The inspector said that about 10 acres seemed fairly clean in late October, the remainder being infested with scattered plants, mostly stalky and nearing flowerings There was little evidence of chemical treatment. In November there was still no evidence of work done,; and the area was badly infested. . To defendant, witness agreed that no notice had been given until the summons was served and that several acres had been cut last year. Defendant had applied for relief workers, but none had been supplied. It was impossible for one man to clear the whole farm. Defendant had done good work previously, but had not maintained it. Witness had not. seen defendant this year.

Defendant said he had not done as much work this season, as. he strained his shoulders and had to restrict his activities. Also, he had to break, in a young horse for mowing, and this further handicapped him. In every other year he had kept the weed in check to- the best of his ability. He believed he could still obtain control this, season.. H© received the summons: —his .first notice —only four days before the Court session,, and he; submitted that under the circumstances the prosecution was not fair.. He had already cleared about 15 acres of the worst growth this season.

Under the circumstances Mr. Mason asked the Court to. allow defendant a chance to prove his intentions before giving a decision. The case was dismissed.