Revocation Of Milkman’s Licence Upheld

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28618, 21 June 1958, Page 11

Revocation Of Milkman’s Licence Upheld

The Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board’s decision in revoking Albert Pounder Andrews’ vendor’s licence was confirmed by Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. He dismissed Andrews’s appeal, made it a condition of his decision that the milkman be compensated by the board for the loss of his roui.vi, and reserved leave for him to apply to the Court if any dispute arose over the compensation awarded. Mr W. R. Lascelles appeared for the board and Mr D. J. Hewitt for Andrews. “If I were required to examine the board’s decision and the circumstances leading up to it, I would have considered some aspects which do not arise in these proceedings,” said the Magistrate, in his reserved decision. These were the shortness of notice given the appellant to appear before the board, the lack of pre ise information on the charges against him, and the “unfortunate expression of opinion by the chairman.” These factors would have influenced him in deciding that well-established pr fiples of justice had not been observed, said the Magistrate. However, these questions did not now arise “as this is in the nature of a rehearing.” , “Most Were Satisfied” The Magistrate said he accepted that most of the appellant’s customers were satisfied—that was to be expected—but that was not the determining factor. The question was whether the variety and nature of the cc by dissatisfied customers were sufficient in number and gravity to justify the revocation of the licence. Andrews, he noted, had chosen not to give evidence. “In some cases it was his own personal conduct which was objected to, and one would have expected that he would be prepared to give evidence and face cross-examina-tion so that the Court would be

Liven an opportunity ' determining the nature, temperament and, as far as possible, the character of the man whose attitude was being criticised.” He was satisfied that Andrews was truculent, aggressive and difficult in his approach to customers, and that his conduct was far below that to be expected of a roundsman. “There was no excuse for his use of blasphemous and objectionable language or his truculence,” said the Magistrate. rhe Magistrate noted that although the hearing had been pending for six months, complaints continued to come in. The charges of canvassing were not disputed, and were supported by the evidence. The complaints received represented nearly 10 per cent, of all the appellant’s customers. Referring to the expressed concern of other milkmen, the Magistrate said that none who properly conducted themselves were in any dar~3r of losing their licences. “Mr Lascelles has assured me that it is the board’s policy to compensate persons whose Ite-

ences are cancelled—if that wer& not so tne penalty would be very heavy indeed.” After being assured, by Mr Lascelles, that a substitute service could be arranged within a week, the Magistrate ordered the revocation to date from June 27, inclusive. He awarded ’ie board £l5 15s costs and witnesses’ expenses.