SHEEP DIE AFTER DIPPING

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVI, Issue 21323, 18 April 1939, Page 11

SHEEP DIE AFTER DIPPING

Waimate Farmer Sues for Damages

Long Hearing Likely

By Telegraph —Pres? Association CHRISTCHURCH, April 17.

Before Mr Justice Northcroft and a special jury, a claim was brought to-day by Alan Grant, of Waimate, a sheepfarmer, for £lB2O in special and general damages against Cooper, MacDougall and Robertson, Ltd., of Manchester, sheep-dip manufacturers, for alleged injuries to his flock following the use of defendants’ dip. The cause of the action, according to Mr W. J. Sim, who appeared for plaintiff, was that Grant dipped his stud sheep in a dip manufactured by directions, and some of his sheep were killed. Before coming to New Zealand in 1913, said Mr Sim, plaintiff had three times won the premier award for sheep-breeders in Scotland, and had in South Canterbury built up a famous stud. The dip, of which Grant purchased two five-gallon drums, was advertised as being especially suitable for dipping heep for show or sale, as it was claimed to give “bloom” to the fleece. The dipping was done in perfect weather, and Grant followed the manufacturers’ directions, added Mr Sim. The sequel was catastrophic, 37 sheep dying, including 16 tud rams and the pick of t.e flock, and 156 were affected. The first to be dipped was a Romney stud ram, for which Mr Grant had paid 100 guineas, and this was dead by 7 a.m. the next day. A significant fact was that it was the first animals to be dipped that died, these being, unfortunately, valuable stud rams. The animals subsequently dipped suffered, but survived. Expert evidence would be called to show that the sheep died from the absorption through the skin of phenol and tar acids contained in the dip. Evidence would be called also that the first sheep put into the dip absorbed some of the poisons.

Statement of Defence In the statement of defence filed by the company, it was denied that the plaintiff’s rams did in fact suffer injury by the absorption of poison from the dipping wash through the skin or that they could suffer injury of that nature and from that cause if the concentrate dip had been diluted and mixed and the rams dipped in accordance with the directions on the labels and with reasonable and proper dipping practices of ordinarily prudent sheepfarmers. To dip rams in high condition or when the weather was unsuitable was contrary to the reasonable and proper practice of prudent sheepfarmers and negligent as involving risks of injury through the dipping operation but not from the constituents or strength of the dipping wash. The company claimed also that it was not responsible in law for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff’s rams owing to the natural effects of the dipping operation but independently of the composition strength or quality of the concentrate dip or Injuries suffered while in a high or unsuitable condition of health or in unsuitable weather, erroneous or inefficient mixing of the dipping wash or disregard of makers’ directions or any default contrary to the usual and appoved practices of prudent sheepfarmers. The defendant had given to the plaintiff adequate warning of all dangers of which the defendant knew or ought to have known that were likely to arise from the proper and careful use of the concentrate dip according to the general and proper practice of sheepfarmers. The precaution of putting through the dipping bath ordinary flock sheep first was the only safeguard against the consequences of the erroneous or inefficient mixing of the dipping wash, and the company was not responsible for the consequences thereof, and if the plaintiff after erroneously or inefficiently mixing the wash suffered loss caused by his failure to put through flock sheep first, the defendant was not liable.

Evidence was being given by the plaintiff when the court adjourned. The action is likely to be one of the most protracted heard by the court for some time. His Honour told members of the jury that their services would be required until well into next week, if not longer. The action was begun more than four years ago and the lapse of time before it has come to hearing is an indication of the widespread nature of the inquiries necessary in the preparation of the evidence.