SUPREME COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIV, Issue LIV, 4 December 1920, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3. * The Supremo Court was continued. Bis Honour Mr. Justice Hosking presided. CLAIM FOR~DAMAG.ES. (Before His Honour and a Jury). The hearing of the action. Joseph Samuel Thompson, of Blenheim, bank manager, v, Charles Edward Lowe, of Harakpke, orchard supervisor, claim for damages for alleged neglect of plaintiff’s orchard, wag continued. -Mr W. Nicholson appeared for plaintiff and Mr C. J. Harley for defendant. Til© fallowing jury was empanelled; —Messrs T. C. Hughes, J. Crombie, E. F. Andrews, G. Price, H. J. Young, E. E. Tucker; B. W. Walker, R. A. Leaper, H. L. Hockey, W. luslop, G. Lcaper (Foreman.), and F. W. Knapp. The witness Oliver Punt el! gaitl that

the trees ho wa« straightening were “a * bit rough 14 round, the roots, in answer to His Honour ffe could not say whether 'the growth round the roots had occurred since they had teen biown down. . * Charles A. Price said, he worked m the Tasman estate under defendant in 1916, 1917, and a part of 1919, including plaintiff’s orchard. To his knowledge there was no spraying done for codim moth on plaintiff’s orchard in'the season 1918-19. The fruit was ■' . badly infected with the moth. He spraved the Delicious about October, 1919* with. oil. The spraying should have (been done earlier. The fruit was infected with red spider. In his openlion the oil spraying should have hi mi done at the latest in August. In previous years this spraying was done in the district in July or August. About five or six gallons were usetU 40 gallons could Lave been used. The Sturmers were* nicked off plaintiff’s orchard. in 1918 about the Ist or 2nd week jh May; anti went to defendant s packing shed. They were graded about July.. .About 25, per font, of them had'dWfcrioratcd and were unsaleable. He considered it would have been bettor to have put the apples in .-noI store. He was of opinion chat the pink spraving had been applied too late, In 1918 the orchard wqs not sprayed for woolly aphis, with which * the .drees were badly affected. Evidence for the* .plaintiff was con-, tinned by Oliver Purnell, who, in exossexamiation by Mr. Harley, said ho did not Set himself up as an orchard export. He sprayed with ml m 1918 m the proportion of about lin 30. ine spray was not effective. Hie, Honour: The spider s were too sturdy, I suppose. •Regarding the Sturmers, witness replied to his Honour that defendants Star triers wbre dealt with iff. the same way as plaintiff’s, ana also deteriorated to some extent. • George Neville _ Canning, . factory manager at Blenheim, with 16 years close acquaintance with' orchards, stated that he lived at Motueka from 1916 to 1919 He saw plaintiff’s orchard in the winter of 1918;. but at the time did not know who owned it. He forind the cultivation “pretty rough,” and this led him to ask whose land'it-was, an d was told that it belonged ,to an absentee. At that particular time the orchard he considered, was not in the condition a well-cultivated orchard should have been, and in his opinion had been roughjy cultivated in th© past. There were good and bad patches in other parts of the block. Questioned as to hoeing round th© butts of trees, witness considered this was essential -until the crop was fuUy .matured. When m the dtaiard in December, 1919, he found that the Cox’s had done badly; but this was the case all over Tasman. Jonathans, were not quite so bad. He considered th© Sturmers were stunted on account of lack of moisture. Witness also went through the adjoining orchard belonging to Mr. Blazey, which * he found, in a considerably better condition than plaintiff s, which looked more.like a six-year-old than an eight-vear-old orchard, * Mr. Nicholson: Would you consider 1419* cnees of Marketable fruit from 2514 ‘trees planted in 1911 a good resiyt for four years. : . ~ Witness: I should say it was a disaster. ; ’ - ■ ■ ... . Continuing, witness .considered that over a term of years the percentage of rejects should npt be more than 10 or 12. , H© did not cqnsider £SOO an unreasonable assesitaapt for lo^f of;crop> anaofning that bad management had ■ produced the result. Ha sboffld adduce' from what h© saw* in l December, 1919, and comparing it ’With the surrounding orchards, that there had be©’! a lack of cultivation in the two precede iftg years. Asked as to what he coifsidofed a reasonable sum *to asses© for deterioration, witness ©aid that no one would buy an orchard unless the returns for the previous year or two wer© satisfactqty, _ , _ Gross-examined by Mr. Harley ; He bad never actually grown- apples on the Moutere Hills. He understood that from a number of orchards the return from nine-year-old trees was two or three bushels a tree. Cbunsel; It would be » wonderful thing for the M°utere if that was eo; His Honour: It is the only successful piece of apple country I have heard of sp far. (Laughter.) •Continuing, witness admitted that good 01 bad crops depended on the quality of the soO. David E. Pry. orchardist, of Riwaka, with 25 years- experience, described the class of trees he had ilvated. H© knew plaintiff’s orchard, having first visited it last February for the purpose of inspecting it. In. hi a opinion it was neglected. Three ploughing© had been made on to the butts of the tree®. This system he considered wrong. It was necessary to hoe round up to th© butts subsequently. He considered this-- a serious omission, as it retarded'growth, five trees generally appeared to have had a break iff - their growth—some of tnom were stunted very badly. Under pro-per-cultivation he believed the trees would have been in a better condition. If Delicious trees were blown over lie ■would straighten th© next day n he had time. , His Honour: If you did not straighten them for six months would it have been injurious to them. • Witness: Decidedly. At this stage th© Court adjourned until next day.

: TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. The Cpprt resumed this morning.' A number of cuttings of trees from plaintiff’s orchard were put in, showing the yearly growth. ' David Pry, continuing his evidence, proceeded , to give, his opinion of t he * samples - submitted. At this stage, His Honour directed that the various cuttings should be properly marked, and he would take the evidence of the witness on this point later. Noel Paynton, of Blenhenn, manager of the Marlborough Fruitgrowers’ Association, said he had inspected plaintiff’s orchard at the end of January, 1919. The cultivation appeared ' to be neglected,. The trees he should say had: not sufficiently, at any 1 rate* at the proper time. The fruit was particularly infected with oodlin moth; there were also signs of woolly aphis and red spider. In his own orchard he would not allow codlin motif to get sucK 9. hold; it was consid-

bred easy to cheek if taken at the proper time. Keeping the trees clean round (lie hutts_ tended to reduce the chance of infection from diseases. Cross-examined by Mr Harley : He had been an orchardist for several years, and had been intimately connected with the industry for a long period. Woolly aphis was prevalent fn Marlborough, but could be kept in cheek, be thought. He considered plaintiff’s land fairly good apple countrv. Clement M. Hunter, of Blenheim, land agent saw plaintiff’s orchard in April and December of 1019. Me owned an orchard in .Redwood's \ alley where rbo laud was sinidar to AI on—fere land. He found plaintiff’s orchard. looking as if it needed cultivation. The fruit was badly infected with black spot, which he put down as tine to insufficient spraying. The trees (were stunted owing to lack ofvultivaI \ ion. In the course of further on- , deuce witness said that from the general appearance of the orchard, the (management in the past had not been sufficient. Tr . „ j Cross-examined by Mr Harley: Before going to Redwood’s Valley be had not had much experience in commercial orchard, work. As a boy he had worked on the orchard at home. Counsel was asking as to the cultivation, done at the butts ol the trees-- ’ His Honour; Perhaps you got up # inlo the trees in those days. Wit ness: 1 certainly did. In reply to further questions by counsel, witness said it was not customary to cultivate orchards during January. He sold his orchard. His Honour: Perhaps yon found a. land'agency was more profitable? • In further reply to Mr Harley, witness said ho found fruit-growing profitable. Sydney Charles Davies, orchardist, Tasman‘West, said lie managed an orchard for an absentee as well as his own. He planted the usual varieties, of trees on the advice of defendant, j In 1916 plaintiff’s orchard was considered a very good one. The results from this orchard were watched’to give an indication as to what other orchards produce.' In the summer of 1918 ho wont through plaintiff’s orchard, and found .plenty of disease, especially on the Sturmers. The trees were doing no good at. all. The system defendant worked on during 1916 to 1919 was very had. Defendant was frequently absent from Tasman West, hfit had boon there more during the last year. Ho had done contract work for the syndicate, but it was not easy, as the orchards were never worked properly and got into a bad (state. He had* complained several times to de-j fe.ndantv Questioned as to whether he | had ever worked on defendant’s tobac-. eo plantation, witness gave two in-j stances where defendant had asked hiirTto leave off his orchard work and

help him, hut witness had refused, because it would have meant his teams being idle. Cross-examined by Mr Harley: .IT© had had five years’ experience in orchard work. Counsel: You have not yet come to the troubles of a bearing orchard ? Witness: I doubt very much whether I will. Counsel: Why P Witness; It is a good thing to keep away from. Counsel (latlghing) : That is the conclusion you have come to. John ‘S. Spence, orchardist, Tasman West said he purchased an orchard in December, 1915, from the syndicate. He should-say plaintiff’s orchard had been insufficiently cultivated. Witness also referred to the presence of disease in the orchard, and also to the weedy state of the ground round the i butts of many of the trees. At the time he hoed round, them, h© should say that they had not been cultivated at the butts for at least two years. In 1918! and 1919 his own orchard was infected with woolly aphis and also a little., rod.spiier and black spot. CVoss-oxamined by Air Hhrley: His own Cox’s on the ridges were not a success ; but kis Sturmers were' now looking well, although all had not succeeded. His own idea why all his trees had not proved successful was that they were over-fruited when young and under-cultivated. 'Sturmers should not be cropped until after seven years—that was, his .experience now. Delicious wore particularly susceptible to red spider, which were hard to combat. Questioned? as to th© trees on th© ridges, they were fairly free from weeds, but were stunted; the trees on the fiat were the best-grown, and had the most grass growing around them. (Left .sitting). ,