A CATTLE - POISING CASE. AN INTERESTING DECISION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 11

A CATTLE - POISING CASE. AN INTERESTING DECISION.

An intere=ting decision was given by Mr H. W. Bishop, S.;\l , aj: Christchurch on Monday in a case in whic'i William Moir claimed £20 Is as damages from the Now Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Association and William White. It app-oars that the plaintiff purchased from the defendant association, who were the agents of the defendant White, a compound callc 1 '"White's Noxiou-, Weed D-cstroyer " for u.=e on his farm. The day after the compound was used^n-e heifer was found dead, and about nine other beasts were very ill, three of them dying subsequently. A thorough examination of one of the dead beasts by a veterinary surgeon showed that death ha<i been caiiw?d by arsenical poisoning, and the other beasts all showed similar symptoms of irritant poisoning. The compound, upon examination, proved to be rich in arsenic. His Worship said he was satisfied that the cattle died from the effects of eating weeds which had been treated with the compound, but he had some doubt as to the association's liability, and the ease against them was dismissed, without costs. The main contention on behalf of the defendant White was that his compound was sold a*> a weed destroyer, and if it reasonably fulfilled that object, and there was no negligence shown, no liability would attach, especially as all tins containing the stuff were labelled " Poison. ' It was also fought to establish contributory negligence aj-ainsc the plaintiff in lesp-eet of (1) Mixing the material at too great a strength, and (2) 'eruing the cattlo in the paddock about to ho dressed with an admit'edly poisonou* comiound. His Worship held contributory negligence was not established in connection with either of these grounds. The plaintiff's son had sworn thab he mixed tho compound in strict aecordnnce with the print- *d directions furnished by tho defendant. His Worship cad .aot think that tho plaintiff could have been reasonably expoctcd to anticipate that the compound ws.s nn effective cattle destroyer as well as an effective weed destro3'or. The defendant knew, or ought to have known, of the dangerous character of tho mixture, and therefore -should have warned the purchaser oitner directly or by general directions, by label or otherwise, that there was danger, as that dangler was not ?uch (tho compound being a seeiet) as, presumab'y. would be known to or appreciable by the plaintiff unless warned of it. A duly was thus cast upon the vendor, and there was a breach of that duty. His Worship held that the placing of the word " Poison " on the printed label did not protect the manufacturer, as he was of opinion that it was not sufficient. The information thus conveyed might be taken as referring to the compound in a diluted form, and would certainly not be considered as conveying % warning of danger to cattle when used for the purpo-e for which it wa-s intended to be used — namely, the destruction of weeds, after having been mixed according to certain directions. Judament was given for the plaintiff for £18, with costs, £5 ss.