ORCHARD DISEASES ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18676, 4 October 1922, Page 8

ORCHARD DISEASES ACT

CLAIAI AGAINST INSPECTOR. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND. October 3. The first case of its kind heard in the dominion under the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act. 1903, was commenced at the Supremo Court before Air Justice Herdman and a special jury of four. George Herbert Guy, liuotypist and owner of an oichard at Henderson, sued John \A r . Collat’d. inspector of orchards, Auckland, on a charge that between February 17 and Afarcit 1. 1922, defendant wrongfully cut down 175 fruit trees in the. orchard and therefore diminished the value of tho land by not less than £409, for which amount; and £SO general damages judgment was sought. The defence practically amounted to a reply that tho inspector between the dales mentioned had caused to be destroyed certain diseased apple and fruit trees on tho land in the exercise of tho powers conferred upon him by the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, and that lie was protected it; such action by virtue of section 15 of the Act. As defendant relied on the Act. for indemnification the case for the defence was taken first. Counsel for the defence addressed the court at length on the provisions of the Act, and asserted that plaintiff not only allowed his orchard to become a serious danger in the district but was given every opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Act and did not do so, but openly flouted the inspector and the department. His Ilo'nor; ’Hie defence is that, defendant is a departmental officer and acted under authority. Air Johnston (for plaintiff): The Act only authorises him to do acts deemed necessary. That is the crux of the case. Mr Patterson (for the defence): The Act, gives him power and makes him the sole judge to do what he thinks fit. Defendant gave evidence as to the condition of the orchard. Ho said- that since December, 1919. several notices were sent asking plaintiff to clean up his orchard :intl to comply with tlie Act. Plaintiff replied that it was difficult to get men to do the work, and witness offered to find a man. In January of this year, following tho complaint, witness visited the orchard anti found it in a disgraceful condition, there being no one on tho property, which was three acres in extent. Subsequently some steps wore taken by .plaintiff, but defendant was not aatisiied. To his Honor: The only effective way was to destroy the infected parts and fruit absolutely. Only the infected parts and the fruit were destroyed. The 175 trees for the most part; were cut above the first fork, which would enable grafting and give a clean orchard and a better class of apple. The case was adjourned.