THE FARM INDUSTRY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 16, 14 October 1907, Page 2

THE FARM INDUSTRY.

A PAGE POR THE M^

■DAIRY FACTORY PROBLEM

INTERESTING POINT RAISED IN COURT,

■ Acasovof interest to dairy farmers was i decided: at the Mastorton Magistrates.. Court i before Mr: •W. J. James,S.M., last week, ] whon-H; J... Searanoke sued the Kaituna. : Dairy-Company for £18 18s. 9d.; balance alloged,.to.be duo on account of 1681 pounds pi butter fat supplied- by plaintiff to defendants more than a year ago. It appeared that Searancke was not a shareholder in the company, but; was the tenant, of one, B. Wadham, who was a shareholder. '.-In■ consideration of this fact.the company-agreed, to -pay him- at the rate ot Bsd. per pound of butter.fat, notwithstanding thaf.it was usual to deduct an extra, halfpenny per pound when, a supplier, was a nonshareholder. Searancko shared in the deliberations:of the company, and was accorded the .same ,, terms as any other supplier ..who. was";• a-''shareholder. ~- A clerical error.;was i found'in"the, agreemont, , the outcome of which .was an aVtion. by Searancko to obtain a f refund'of a sum, which, in a way represented of the companyfs profits for the'year,-and yet which was'utilised,for off .depreciation-of plant. The com-pany-did hot divide'this profit.' If it had d6ne>so>tho.bank-overdraft would have been correspondingly increased. Searancko was debited iwith his portion, of the , item, as were'-'the -other suppliers, but his counsel (Mr;.'Dolan) held. that. as his client : was a "non-shareholder the anmnt could not rightly : be.charged against him, because he was in this manner being charged with a reduction of>tho overdraft which,had not been incurred in - The amount should'have been'.'debited against the capital account, but-nptragainst the profit and loss account. The, company alleged that the „ amount in question had been deducted from the plaintiff's for certain items, : such as legal costs; , improvements, working expenses, and writings-off for-depreciation. Amongst witnesses called, by Mr. Hollings for the defence were G. , Sykes;- Secretary of the Mastterton Dairy Company, J. Moncrieff, jun;, Secretary of the- Dalefield and Parkvale Dairy. Company, and W. Fisher, Chairman 'of tthe Tai-atahi'Dairy Company. ■■ These expert witnesses.stated that they considered that'lt was proper to qharge plaintiff's gross proceeds'with his'share of the working expenses and/writings-off for Such items : wero deducted in \tho sanio way in the 'management of the witnesses' own;factories. Plaintiff's counsel then referred to the fact that'; thdso , 'witnesses had admitted that-their factories were paying at'least a'Shilling per pound ifbr.-butter fat, whereas the defondant company 'had'paid plaintiff only B£d. ; For'the defence.Mr. Hollings asserted that plaintiff had realised .as much for his butter fat as the actual shareholders, and, as it had been shown that it was customary for non-shareholders to receive a half-penny per pound -less .than shareholders, iplaintiff should have -been!,well satisfied. . ■■■-■ ' Plaintiff's counsel then said that in the face of■'the' evidence ;'f or - the .defence he would electro' take a non-suit.' A - This was , accordingly grantedby the Bench, with-'£4'- 16s costs. : ■"• . • \

A.N ON THE LAND,