LIME IN GRAIN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 197, 23 August 1935, Page 8

LIME IN GRAIN

ALLEGATION AGAINST I MILLER THEFT CHARGES DISMISSED. 1 Per Press Association. ] CHRISTCHURCH. Aug. 22. Allegations that he had mixed agricultural lime in wheat and barley which he had crushed for farmers, were made by the police against Melbourne Thomas Wheeler, mill owner, in the Magistrate’s Court. Wheeler pleaded not guilty to three charges, two of theft of wheat and one of theft of barley, the amounts involved in the respective charges being 13s 6d, Bs, and 4s, from Edward O’Neill, John James Burrows and William John James.

Sub-Inspector 1). A. MacLcan said that the case was one of the most peculiar ever to come before the Court. Farmers who had sent wheat and barley to Wheeler’s mill for crushing had found that the animals on their farms would not eat the meal made from the crushed material. A detective had gone to the mill and four samples of material crushed by accused had been taken to the Government analyst. His tests had shown the four samples to contain respectively 18.1 per cent., 28.9 per cent., 20.6 per cent., and 23.7 per cent, of agricultural lime. Lime was very riiuch cheaper than either wheat or barley, and the police accusation was that by putting in the lime accused was stealing some of the grain. George Arthur Swanston, an assistant at the mill, said that the lime was not mixed with all the wheat and barley that came to the mill. He gave details of the methods used at the mill. To Mr. R. M. Hill, for the defence, he said that a test with three sacks of barley had shown that 421 b. in weight was lost as a result of the crushing. None of the meal sent in was kept back.

F. J. T. Griggs, an analyst, gave evidence of tests he had made of four samples. The lime was evenly mixed. He had not before heard of ground limestone in animal feed. If an animal could be induced to eat the food containing lime the effect would be harmful. If the meal was to be cooked for human food the effect would be still more harmful.

Mr. F. C. Lewey, S.M., said that from the evidence of Swanston none of the grain was kept back. The adding of a deleterious substance to the grain might be a ground for civil action, but it was not evidence of theft, and the charges would accordingly be dismissed.