SHAREMILKING ACT

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23317, 1 May 1941, Page 10

SHAREMILKING ACT

■ APPEAL COURT’S RULING (P.A.) WELLINGTON, April 30. The Court of Appeal, delivering judgment to-day in the case Handley v. Wishnowsky,;’ heard on March 12, gave a judgment of great importance to share-milkers and dairy companies. The Court’s Bench of five Judges unanimously upheld the decision of' Mr Justice. Blair, given in the Supreme Court at )Vanganui, that, the-prppen construction of Section 3 of; the Sharemilking Agreements Act, 1937, is that that section provides that private contracts of share-milking shall operate not- 1 less favourably as to terms and conditions .than the statutory, agreement provided for by that act. Mr Justice Smith, dealing with the point hr detail, said:; “In my view the true construction of the act is that Section 3 requires that the private share-milking agreement and the statutory agreement- shall be compared term by term ;ih accordance with the provisions of .Section 3, : namely:; (1). That after; August l, 1938, sharermilking. lagr,eemenits :bf : ; the class specified by, the section shall operate mot' less favourably to the share-milker in, ahy respect than’, if the terras arid conditioris .speCified in the schedule to the act were |pdo^rated.r4nu.the < merit at that date; and ,(2h that terrns arid conditions which are inconsistent. MthfthoseViariSe; tent thatthfey would. ; operate toitherdisadvantage. of the share-milker "are deemed—from"August l r -1938;"orifrom the date of the agreement, whichever is the-later—-to bg .null and .void.” ’ ; Dealing with the’-facts of, the par- ’ ticular case .before 1 it. the Court; -by a ifaajority • of • three.’ toVtwp,- ; helsl' that judgments£hbrild- ; -Jiav£- been -entered -against.; Eric "Nicholas .Haqdleyf instead; of * Ocorge - Henry y Handlcjy, Cbnie-

quentjy judgment against 1 George; Henry; Handley,'was. vapatedandjudfg- * ment entered v fortf the* "same ' amount f against ',