LOSS OF STOCK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23487, 26 October 1939, Page 13

LOSS OF STOCK

FARMER AT REPOROA £521 CLAIMED FROM GROWN ARSENIC IN SOIL AND WATER [fkoji oun own con respondent] HAMILTON, "Wednesday The death of dairy stock on Crown land at Rcporoa, near liotorua, during recent years had a sequel in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-daj*, when a claim against the Crown by one of the farmers affected was heard before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. The suppliant, Martin Charles Drabble, claimed £521 damages for loss of stock. Mr. P. A. Potter, of Potorua, appeared for the suppliant, and the Crown was represented by the Crown solicitor. Mr. H. T. Gillies. Mr. Potter said that on November 6, 1935. the Commissioner of Crown Lands advertised a section of 126 acres at Heporoa which was open for selection. The advertisement stated the farm to be dairying land, but the experience of suppliant and tenants of other property in the Peporoa district showed that the land was not suitable for dairying. On December G, 1935, suppliant applied for and was granted-lease of the property with the right of purchase. When suppliant inspected the property, it appeared to be all right on the surface, iiut soon after he took over the farm bis stock became sick. From December 17, 1935, to the end of October. 1937, suppliant lost 17 head of stock and one horse.

Inspectors of the Department of Agriculture visited the property and suppliant carried out any suggestions they made. He himself was instrumental in having Mr. 11. E. 11. Grimmett, of Waliacoville. chief Government analyst, inspect the property on October 19.'17. Mr. Grimmett pronounced samples of water and soil to contain quantities of arsenic capable of killing stock. He told the suppliant to get the stock off the property at once or he would logo more.

Mr. Potter said suppliant alleged that the Commissioner of Crown Lands had misrepresented the property in describing it as a first-class dairying property. He declared that the average butter-fat production of his stock had dropped from ISOlb. to 1261b. His Honor pointed out to Mr. Potter that he would have to prove fraud. The Court might agree that the property was unsatisfactory and might sympathise with suppliant and consider him entitled to compensation, but the question of fraud had to be met. Mr. Potter said he understood the position. The hearing was adjourned after several witnesses had been heard.