Decision Reserved On Milk Goodwill Appeals

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28343, 31 July 1957, Page 17

Decision Reserved On Milk Goodwill Appeals

Decision was reserved by Mr jj. A. Lee, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when the hearing of appeals by 12 milk vendors against charges by the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board for goodwill of gallonage in excess of specified gallonage was concluded. The hearing of the appeals has occupied three days, the hearing having last adjourned on July 16. Mr A. C. Perry appeared for the appellants, J. F. R. Brown, J. Bowler, G. H. Houston, Laing Brothers. L. M. Brett, E. Willson, A. G. Cassidy, W. K. Hockey, D. J. Malcolm, P. Wright, and T. Williamson. Mr W. R. Lascelles appeared for the board. The appellants were seeking a reduction in the dmount of £l2 a gallon charged by the board for the goodwill of excess gallonage sold by the vendors. When the hearing opened on July 2, Mr Perry submitted that by being asked to pay this amount through the closer settlement of areas, these vendors were not receiving due recognition for the difference in their position compared with that of vendors in older and more closely settled areas. The appeals had been made to the board and dismissed. It, was said that some appellants were being asked to pay up to £BOO for goodwill. standard Maximum On behalf of the board, Mr Lascelles had submitted that the board was anxious to be fair to vendors and grant concessions where they fell within the purview of the act. The goodwill for excess was by statute the property of the milk authority and the price to be paid had to be fixed in regard to certain factors. The £l2 was the standard maximum figure fixed by the New Zealand Metropolitan Milk Board, but the act gave no real clue on the general or special factors that must be determined in each case. The Christchurch Milk Board had to act on the directive of the New Zealand Board, which was the higher authority. In evidence yesterday, Richmond George Thomson, a milk sampling officer of the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board, said that he was fully conversant with the conditions in all the milk zones of the Christchurch area and gave a description of the conditions existing in the appellants’ zones.

Cross-examined by Mr Perry, he said that there had been a big increase in housing in these zones. Housing had been sparse in the years before an inspection he had made in 1955. John William Huggins, supervising officer of the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board, said in evidence that no vendor on the fringe of the city had ever asked for a zone in the city area. He concluded that any temporary inconvenience in such zones, which the appellants possessed, was well worth while. Milk Council Circular Cross-examining the witness, Mr Perry quoted from a circular of

th ?. c ?,2J ra l MUk Council Which sard: There are often hill and scattered rounds, as well as rounds on the flat within the same district as in Hutt Valley and Christchurch. Within a district 01 er®, might be a compact round, round ” r ° Und ’ ° T “■ scatt '*®d Mr Perry: I draw your zrttenpon to the fact that £l2 <ThMllnn is not necessarily a proper ntruro unless you take the type of round into account? Witness: Yes, that is clear. Mr Perry: The purpose of the circular was to point out that £l2 was a maximum figure and that all rounds were not worth that much?—Yes. When Mr Perry suggested that in no other form of business did persons who had built up goodw^i5 a Y® to . P ay for it, witness said that he did not entirely agree. Mr Lascelles (to Huggins): How much have the appellants done to build up their rounds? Huggins: Not a great deal. The growth of the city has done it for them. They just happened to be passing the houses.