May  1,  1S96.] 
Supplement  to  the  ^'Tropical  Agriculturist.'" 
805 
results.  Thick  .seeding  gives  a heavier  yield,  and 
a better  quality  of  hay.  From  1 to  2 bushels  are 
usually  sown  per  acre,  according  to  the  quality  of 
the  seed.  In  case  of  failure  to  get  a good  stand, 
the  crop  may  be  allowed  to  go  to  seed  the  first 
year,  after  which  the  vacant  spaces  will  be  found 
to  be  self-seeded.  On  small  patches,  in  such 
cases,  the  ground  is  sometimes  ploughed  up,  and 
the  underground  stems  scattered  along  the 
furrows  over  the  vacant  spots.  In  most  localities 
it  is  generally  considered  desirable  to  plough  the 
land  about  every  third  year,  otherwise  the  root- 
stocks become  matted  near  the  surface,  and  the 
crop  is  more  affected  by  drought.  Ploughing 
causes  it  to  grow  more  thickly  and  vigorously.  ” 
In  another  work,  ‘‘  Report  on  the  Gra.sses  of  the 
youth,”  Dr.  Vasey  further  says; — “Mr.  N.  B. 
Moore  has  cultivated  this  grass  for  forty  years, 
and  prefers  it  to  all  others.  It  is  perennial,  as 
nutritious  as  any  other,  difficult  to  eradicate,  will 
grow  on  ordinary  soil,  and  yields  abundantly.” 
“ Horses  and  cattle  are  fond  of  it  both  in  its 
dry  and  green  condition.  Probably  no  grass  gives 
better  promise  for  the  dry  arid  lands  of  the  west.” 
Soryhum  Halapense  is  said  is  to  be  common  all 
over  Northern  India  in  cultivated  and  uncultivated 
ground,  and  is  considered  to  be  a good  fodder 
grass  both  for  grazing  and  hay. 
The  Department  of  Agriculture  of  Victoria 
distributed  some  of  the  seed  of  this  grass  to 
farmers  in  1888,  and  following  are  extracts  from 
the  circular  issued  at  the  time  : — “ Superior  both 
as  a grazing  and  hay  grass;  has  abundance  of 
roots,  which  decay,  thereby  enriching  the  ground 
rather  than  exhausting  it.  The  best  results  follow 
sowing  the  seed  in  August  and  September, 
enabling  the  seed  to  get  a good  root  by  the 
autumn,  and  forming  a better  turf  the  following 
season.  Sow  broadcast  at  the  rate  of  a bushel 
an  acre,  and  cover  witli  a light  brush,  or  sow  just 
before  a heavy  rain.  Three  good  crops  the 
following  .season  will  be  the  result  if  the  season 
is  favourable.” 
Baron  von  Mueller  quotes  J.  L.  Dow,  of  Victoria, 
as  stating  that  it  keeps  green  in  the  heat  of 
summer;  also,  Mr.  Hollingsworth,  that  it  is  not 
eaten  out  by  pasture  animals.  The  Baron  adds, 
“ It  will  also  grow  in  drift  sand  of  the  coast,  and 
will  keep  growing  during  the  dry  season,  when 
most  other  grasses  fail,  but  improves  much  on 
irrigation  ; the  roots  resist  some  frost ; three  tons 
can  be  cut  from  one  acre  in  a single  season  ; it 
yields  so  large  a hay-crop,  that  it  may  be  cut  half 
a dozen  times  in  a season,  provided  the  land  be 
rich.  All  kinds  of  stock  have  a predilection 
for  this  grass.” 
The  greatest  objection  to  this  grass  is  tlie 
difficulty  of  eradicating  it,  and  care  should  be 
taken  not  to  introduce  it  into  fields  intended  for 
cultivation.  It  is  also  said  to  produce  injurious 
effects  on  cattle  if  eaten  when  too  young  or  when 
the  plants  are  atunted  by  drought. 
Duthie  me7itions  that  the  seed  of  this  grass  is 
collected  in  some  parts  of  India,  ground  and 
mixed  with  the  flour  of  Pennisetum  ti/phoideum 
(cambu)  and  eaten  by  the  poorer  classes. 
IS  A CHARGh:  OF  BAD  CULTIVATION 
ACTIONABLE  ? 
This  question  was  before  Lord  Kincairney  on 
Tuesday  of  last  week  in  connection  with  the  action 
brought  b_y  Alexander  M'Keand,  farmer,  Port- 
William,  Wigtownsliire,  against  Sir  Herbert  Alax- 
well,  Bart.,  M.P.,  for  damages  to  the  amount  of  U500 
for  alleged  slander.  Tlie  pursuer  had  for  thirty- 
six  years  been  tenant  of  a farm  on  the  defender’s 
estate.  His  lease  expired  at  Whitsunday,  1895. 
He  offered  £200  as  a rent  for  a renewal  of  the 
lease,  but  the  defender  refused  the  offer,  but 
shortly  afterwards  let  the  farm  to  another  tenant 
at  that  rent.  It  was  in  relation  to  this  that  the 
letters  complained  of  were  written.  One  letter, 
written  by  the  defender  to  Mr.  M'Connell,  a 
neighbouring  farmer,  was  published  subsequently 
in  the  Galloioay  Gazette,  but  Lord  Kincairney  held 
that  the  defender  was  not  responsible  for  its 
publication,  and  disallowed  the  issue  under  that 
head.  Thei’e  remained  a letter  and  certain  notes 
written  by  the  defender  and  published  by  him  in 
the  Galloioay  Gazette  of  22nd  May,  1895.  In 
these  statements  were  made  that  the  farm  had 
been  indifferently  cultivated  or  managed  ; that,  in 
consequence,  it  had  been  brought  into  unexhausted 
condition,  which  necessitated  the  application  of  a 
considerable  amount  of  lime  manure  for  six  years. 
The  pursuer  sought  to  make  out  that  these 
statements  amounted  to  a charge  of  dishonesty. 
Lord  Kincairney,  however,  held  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  maintain  that  an  assertion  that  a man 
was  a bad  farmer  could  be  innuendoed  as  meaning 
that  he  was  a dishonest  farmer.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  his  lordship’s  opinion,  each  of  the  letters, 
and  also  the  notes,  did  import  that  the  farmer  had 
worked  the  farm  unskilfully  as  a farmer,  and  that 
the  farm  suffered  in  consequence.  Was  such  an 
allegation  actionable  ? Now,  the  defender  was 
at  the  time  a candidate  for  the  county,  and  it 
was  in  reply  to  an  express  demand  made  for 
an  explanation  of  the  circumstances  that  the 
defender  wrote  the  letter  of  14th  May,  in 
which  he  charged  the  pursuer  with  indifferent 
cultivation  causing  injury  to  the  farm.  Now, 
nothing  more  imjurious  to  a farmer  could  be  done, 
for  the  publication  might  probably  prevent  the 
teiiaut  getting  anotlier  farm  in  the  neighbourhood, 
and  so  to  some  extent  disable  him  from  earning 
his  livelihood  in  the  business  to  which  he  had 
been  bred.  His  lordship  would  be  slow  to  think 
that  the  law  afforded  no  remedy  for  so  great  a 
wrong.  It  was  analogous  to  cases  in  which  public 
statements  that  a profes.sor  or  schoolmaster  was 
unfit  for  his  office  had  been  held  actionable.  The 
law  certainly  did  allow  anyone  on  due  occasion  to 
criticise  the  work  of  a tr-adesman ; but  that  w'as  a 
different  matter.  Tlie  defender’s  defence  was  that 
his  letter  was  a public  reply  to  a public  attack  or 
public  criticism — namely,  the  attack  made  on  him 
when  a letter,  written  by  pursuer,  was  read  at  a 
meeting  of  farmers  and  electors,  and  he  pled  that 
as  a caiididate  he  had  to  explain  the  circumstances. 
Lord  Kincairney,  however,  held  that,  seeing  it 
was  not  admitted  that  the  pursuer  had  anything 
to  do  with  the  publication  of  the  statement  at 
that  public  meeting,  the  defence  failed.  If  it 
was  proved  that  tlie  pursuer  w'as  active  in  sub- 
mitting the  statement  to  tlie  meeting  of  farmers, 
that  would  be  a different  matter.  But,  if  that 
were  not  proved,  he  did  not  think  that  the 
pursuer’s  right  should  be  affected  by  the 
unauthorised  act  of  Mr.  M'Connell.  The  issue  to 
be  sent  to  a jury  in  this  case  is,  whether  the  letter 
and  notes  published  by  the  defender  in  the 
Galloioay  Gazette,  or  any  part  of  them,  were  of 
