THE MILKY WAY.
1 A CHANGE OF SITE. DID MR. SPEAGG MENTION IT J (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) ■PUKEKOHE, this day. The hearing of the Onewhero Dairy case was continued yesterday at the Magistrate's Court, Pukekohe, .before Mr. Northeroft, S.M. Mr. Hanna appeared for the New Zealand Dairy Association, and Mr. McGregor for Mr. A. Cathcart. -Mr. 'McGregor called further evidence for the defence. William Henry Cummings, settler, of Onewhero, said he was secretary of the company during the whole of its career. ■He was present at the meetings in 1906, which were addressed by Mr. Spragg. At the May meeting Mr. Spragg found that there were a great many dissentients, and, in order to overcome their ifeeling against amalgamation, he told them the factory would still be their own. The only change would be a change of name. When they understood that the old factory was to remain in their hands, they were satisfied. He would say positively that Mr. Spragg never said a word about the necessity for a change of site. At the August meeting Mr. Spragg spoke for nearly an hour. He never gave so much as an intimation that the site was to be changed. If such a. statement had been, made, witness would have left the meeting, and he firmly telieved all the Onewhero people would have done the same. He was quite certain no sale would have been effected. Cross-examined by Mr. Hanna: He was 75 years of age. His hearing was good. He did not know who convened the May meeting. He did not know what it was for unless for the sale of property. He did not remember whether any resolution was passed or not. Mr. Hanna read to witness a resolution passed at the meeting, and witnesa eaid he recollected the matter now his attention was drawn to it. Mr. Hanna then asked witness how he came to remember so clearly what Mr. Spragg said. Witness said ihe had not discussed the matter with anybody. William Henry Pellow, a. supplier and shareholder of "the Onewhero Company, said he was present at the meetings held in connection with amalgamation. Mr. Spragg never mentioned the question of removing ihe creamery to a more central site. He remembered Mr, Spragg telling them that the creamery would remain theirs; the only change would be a change of name. He received notice of a change from the Association in 1908, when he signed a petition, against. the change. The change would be prejudicial to Cathcart's interests. Cross-examined by Mr. Hanna: Witness said since the case started it had , been discussed amongst themselves in Onewhero. Mr. Spragg had made no reference whatever to the alleged unsuitability of the site. Mr. Spragg did not say whether he was going to use the old site for a skimming station. He eaid some of the plant was obsolete. He said the fatcory would be theirs. There would be no changes—only a change in name. Arthur Crawford, boardinghouse-keep-er in Onewhero, said in 1906 ihe was a farmer, and had : been a director and a supplier of the Onewhero Company. Hβ had been present at various meetings addressed by Mr. Spragg. Mr. Spragg dealt' generally with the advantages of amalgamation. He did not hear Mr. Spragg allude to the necessity for a change of site. He ■would have been interested to hear such a statement, because he had bought some property near the old site, and if he had known the site was to be changed he would not have touched it. He voted for amalgamation. He would not have done so had he known the site was to be shifted. Cross-examined, "he -would have heard the statement had Mr. Spragg made it. He swore he had never eaid in reply to Mr. Henderson, "For God's sake let us sell the factory before talking about moving it." Joseph Logan, farmer, corroborated the evidence given by previous witnesses that Mr. Spragg had' not spoken of a change >of site. He Tras positive that [the resolution to amalgamate- would have been defeated if Mr. Spragg had made any etatement of the kind. Under cross-examination, witnese maintained that Mr. Spragg had not referred to any change of site. If Messrs. Spragg, Pacey, Moore, Miller/ Fulton, and-Andrews said there was a reference made they were mistaken. Edward McWhirter (farmer), John Andrew (farmer), Samuel Crawford (storekeeper), Thoma« Pollack (farmer), John Cummings (farmer), William O'Neill (farmer), and' John Cathcart (brother of defendant), all corroborated the evidence given by previous witnesses. This concluded the evidence, and ihis Worship adjourned the case to Onehunga sine die, a day to be fixed probably after Easter for the hearing of argument.
Fairfax Media is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Fairfax Media. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.