"NOT PIRACY."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 72, 25 March 1936, Page 10

"NOT PIRACY."

PROTECTED TRADE.

MILK VENDOR FINED. RIGHTS OF THE CONSUMER, MAGISTRATE'S COMMENTS. "I think the matter should be ventilated and that the public should realise that when a milk vendor's' license is revoked and his round distributed to

n nother vendor or vendors, the public, have no right to choose their source of supply and say from whom they .are to take their milk. That is done for them by ' tho Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council," said Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court this morning, when the Milk Council prosecuted a Point Chevalier milk vendor on a charge of delivering milk without the consent of the council, to a. person who had been a customer of another roundsman, whose license was revoked on January 17. The case, the first of its kind brought <=ince tho amendment of the Act last vear, was of some importance both to vendors and the consumers.

The defendant Was William A. Lye. Mr. Fleming appeared on his behalf and pleaded not guilty. Mr. J. B. Johnston and Mr. Drummond appeared for the Auckland Milk Council.

Mr. Johnston explained the legislation, and said the prosecution had' been l>rought under the amendments to the Act. Under the original Act there was si duty on the Milk Council to consolidate rounds in order to effect economies, but no provision to compensate vendors. However, under the amending Act, the council now had power to pay compensation, and since tliat time the amount of consolidation carried out had been considerable. This was not in a wholesale way. If a vendor was willing to sell bis round, he first had to offer it for sale to the Milk Council, intimating the lowest price he was willing to accept. The council bad bought a number of rounds, and sold them cither whole or in piecemeal. These purchasers had to be protected, and the Act made it an offence for any other vendor other than the* purchaser to serve former customers of the vendor who sold to the council.' "If pirates can come in, then the whole system of consolidation will break down," said Mr. Johnston. "In the present case notice was sent to every roundsman, including Lye, stating that it was an offence to serve certain people, and that if they did serve them , they would be liable to prosecution. Along with others, defendant was invited ff) attend a meeting or to buy the customers. Purchasers of the round have to be protected. Again, if pirates >irc allowed to operate, no vendor will - urchase a round. The Milk Council looks upon this offence as a very grave one, and it has taken this action in the interests of the people and the roundsmen.** Not a Trifling Matter. Mr.- Wyvern Wilson: A piecemeal consolidation has an effect upon the public of which I don't think they are aware. Mr. Johnston: That is always the difficulty where consolidation is concerned, I at it is only a theoretical difficulty, I submit. Mr. Wilson: The matter is not a trifling one. Until there is some scheme i.'iir the uniformity of quality of supply, should the people be deprived of their light of selection? Mr. Johnston said the standard of milk had been improved by the council, which took many bacteriological tests. "I quite appreciate your Worship's point. That is one of the matters which was brought before the Agriculture Commission which sat in Auckland last week. I have not the slightest doubt that further legislation will follow." "Well, it seems a pity thaf you prosecute before you get your full powers," isaid the magistrate. Mr. Johnston: But there is the question of this piracy—where one vendor serves a customer he has no-right to

serve. . Mh Wilson: There is still the mix- j ture, in the milk business, of the natural law and the statutory law. It used to lie the survival of the fittest —the man with the best milk to sell. Now it is the statutory law. Mr. Johnston: The question of the public interest does not come into it. Tt is the council enforcing the law against the one who breaks, it. Evidence was given by Norman Chapman, secretary of the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council, who said thatall vendors were invited to submit particulars of their rounds. Vendors were then asked to attend a meeting to divide the rounds up in the best way. Lye was« given an opportunity of participating in ii redistribution, but he did not attend. Inspectors Watch House.

C. H. Suisted, inspector employed by the Milk Council, and an assistant, both stated that they watched a house in Walker Road, Point Chevalier, from 3 a.m. until 5.10 a.m. oil March 7 and that they saw Ly© call and serve the occupant of the house. ' On being approached defendant admitted serving the house. Another official of the council, whose sole work was the zoning of rounds and consolidating rounds, said that up to the present the work had been proceeding successfully with very little trouble. "If it wer© not for the protection clause wo would not have any consolidation,

lie said. "Your Worship has made some comments which I also intended to make, , said Mr. Fleming. "They have come with greater fores from your Worship. This is the most extraordinary and farreaching prosecution one can imagine, for it violates the natural law. It means that no vendor can serve a particular customer after the license of tho previous vendor has been revoked." Counsel said it had a most serious effect upon customers. When a license was revoked no vendor could serve a customer unless by consent or license of the Milk Council. There could bo considerable hiatus between the time of revocation of a license and the period when the new vendor commenced to supply customers. Even if a customer was not satisfied with the milk supplied, lie must adhere to the particular vendor who had purchased the round. Mr. Fleming added that Lye had been serving a customer in Walker Road for two years, and before she took milk from another milkman whose license had been revoked. This customer considered that the milk she was obtaining was not keeping, so she implored defendant to again serve her daily. There was no question of piracy, as Lye did not canvass for customers. The customer insisted on him supplying her. Jle depended on tho .quality of his milk to secure trade.

'Mr. Johnston: This is not an act forced through by the Milk Council, but one. ynm- -wsoemted- byr trade ■ generally, " " *

Lye gave evidence that the first intimation he had of the matter was when he was accosted by two inspectors on March 7 and told that he should not be serving the customer in question. His license, which he produced, was not restricted to any area.

The customer served by Lye. a woman, on being called, said Lye-did not canvass her. "I canvassed him/' she said.

Mr. Wilson: Fortunately for you the legislation docs not go far enough, except that you might be charged with aiding and abetting. Mr. Fleming said the Act itself was looked upon as a grievance by vendors and customers. This was a case of an old customer actually importuning Lyc to supply her with inilk and not one where a 'pirate was butting in. "Until the whole scheme is put into operation in a comprehensive way it will operate very severely upon vendors and customers." Mr. Drumnvond asked the magistrate to take a serious view of the matter and to make an example of defendant, because of the difficulty in detecting such offences. If customers were not satisfied with their supply of milk it was their duty to communicate with the Milk Council. In the present case the woman concerned had only to communicate with the council, when she could have been transferred to Lye as a customer. Effect of Amendments. The magistrate said he thought the circumstances were due entirely to the public not being generally aware of the very far-reaching eflect of the amendments to the Act made last, year. "This woman implored her old milkman to come back to her," he said. "Under the Act she did a wrong thing. She did not know she could have informed the Milk Council. Lye was absolutely prohibited from supplying her. Hers was a protected trade. I think the matter should be ventilated and the public should realise the position. The public have no right to choose their supply of milkto decide from whom they should take milk. That is for the Milk Council. However, this case is not one of piracy. It was more or less forced upon defendant by the customer." Defendant was fined £1 and costs 13/.