THE ALLEGED SCAB CASE IN WAIKATO.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5413, 24 March 1879, Page 3

THE ALLEGED SCAB CASE IN WAIKATO.

Tue settlers in Waikato appear determined to have the scab case re-examined, so that a definite rule may be laid down on the subject. A gentleman who has interested himself in the subject furnishes us with the following : — When the evidence on which Mr, Jolly was fined for having scab in his flock became known in the Waikato, the strongest feeling was expressed by tho settlers that a grave miscarriage of justice had taken place. Mr, Lewis stated that he did not see the acaries ; that it was not necessary to do so ; that the case was too plain to inake any mistake about it. But the whole facts of the case prove that ho was mistaken. He said ho would expect to find scab in the flock. Not only the Waikato Inspector, but tho beat judges of scab in the district, pronounced them entirely free from scab. The sheep have never been dressed since. Mr. Lewis and his witnesses not only admit that judges of scab are sometimes mistaken, . but completely contradicted each other. Mr. Lewis said the insect would die in the cold skin after the death of the animal. Mr. Howard said it was possible to find insccts in the skin twelve months after. Mr. Lewis said scab wounds have a greenish look, unlike scars. Mr. Trotter said this was M pale red," Mr. Howard " reddish brown." Mr. Lewis once mistook a slight discolouration of the skin for incipient scab. Mr. Fergussonhad known judges of scab make mistakes. Mr. Howard had known good judges make mistakes. A petition signed by nearly every settler in the district who had an opportunity of doing so (from two to three hundred in all) was sent to the Assembly last session, praying that the case might be inquired into. It was understood that a commission was to be appointed, but after waiting some months, with nothing being done, a deputation was appointed by the Cambridge Farmers* Club to wait on the Minister of Justice to ascertain if anything had been done in tho matter. Mr. Sheehan said nothing had been done, and that he feared there were no grounds for a commission. It was pointed cut to him that tho fact of no scab being found in the flock at Hamilton clearly shewed the danger to settlers of having sheep condemned on such evidence as Mr. Jolly's ; that Mr. Lewis still maintains the sheep were scabby, and of course will feel himself bound to condemn sheep in a similar state. The case has cost Mr. Jolly about £70, to say nothing of the loss of keeping the balance of his Hock, not knowing what to do with them. The question, then, is this : Believing, as tho great body of the settlers do, that Mr. Jolly has been wronged, and that they must expect similar treatment under similar circumstances, is it right that he should remain in the position in which he is placed? Is it unreasonable to ask, seeing that not only Mr. Jolly, but a large body of his follow-sottlers feel that they have not that security for their flocks to which they are entitled, that the matter may be placed in the hands of a Commission? There is one I other matter to be attended to, viz., that part ' of Mr. Fergusson's evidence where he says, 4< I Bi.w a living insect moving." Sir. Lewis, when he met the Cambridge Farmers' Club, took a copy of the evidence with him, and read it to the Club. No member present heard a word ol it, yet one would have thought if it had been read it would have attracted more attention than all the rest of the evidence put together. No one in their senses could have heard such a thing as that without feeling that a Bench of Magistrates who would admit such evidence unquestioned were totally ignorant of what they were about, or that they were unworthy of the position iu which thoy were placed*