THE CITY’S MILK

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 182, 28 April 1921, Page 6

THE CITY’S MILK

QUESTION OF WINTER SUPPLY VENDORS SUE CORPORATION ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT Hearing was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before Hm Honour Mr. Justice Reed, of the claim for .£1299 J ss. 2d. damages, preferred by the Wellington Milk Vendors’ Association (No. 3 Company, serving Newtown, Lyall Bay, and Roseneath), against tho Wellington City Corporation, for alleged breach of contract. The association claims that it had sus tained a very oonsiderabLe loss through the failure of the corporation to supply all the milk required by the association during tho winter months of last year. Mr M. Myers, with him Mr. 0. C. Mozengarb, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. O'Shea, city solicitor, for the corporation. Mr. O’Shea continued his cross-exami-nation of Clement J. Carlyon, secretary of the Featherston Co-operative Dairy Company. Counsel: If 29. 6d. per gallon were offered for three months of the winter would that pay the farmers?—"l believe it would, but no offer approaching that has been made."

Further questions by Mr. O’Shea relative to t'he matter of prices for Featherston milk were ruled out of order.

Mr. O'Shea rejoined that he merely wanted to show that in acting as it did there could be no suggestion that the committee in charge of the milk supply scheme acted in any but a perfectly honourable manner in the best interests of the city. The People's Requirements. Francis John W. M’Keown, factory manager, Featherston Co-operative Dairy Co., stated that the corporation arranged in 1919 to take a portion of the company’s milk in April and May, 1920. In May 2000 gallons a day, and in June 1000 gallons a day were supplied.

His Honour: We have not got in evidence the average requirements of the people of Wellington. Mr. O’Shea: About 4250 gallons.

Witness -added that Should the corporation make an arrangement with tho fag-more, at a satisfactory price, the supply would go up at least 50 per cent, in the winter following, with a. possibility of a further heavy increase. It would be quite possible to fix a basic price for twelve months ahead, having in view the existing cheese and butter prices.

Ernest E. O’Neale, a director of the Featherston Dairy Co., in his evidence, said that the farmers in his district only took up winter milking to supply the Wellington City Corporation. Featherston district could supply the whole of Wellington City, but it would take four or five years to work up the necessary herd. Up to now it had been more profitable for the farmers to milk in the summer. The Featherston farmers were apparently not taking full steps to ensure tho winter’s supply of milk.

Mr. O’Shea: What price would you ask? ■ Witness: Somewhere about 2s. 6d.

Adam Dalgleish, a director of the plaintiff company, gave evidence to' the effect that previous to the institution of the city’s milk scheme he had been in business as a vendor, and had never had any trouble over winter milk. Case for the Defence. In opening the case for the defence, Mr. O’Shea submitted that the corporation’s agreement with tho milk distributing companies was not an absolute contract to supply. . Counsel said that up to the middle of May, 1926, the distributing companies had all the milk the}- required. Furthermore, up to May 16 they continuously returned milk to the milk stations. In June and July, when. the real shortage was on, they returned nothing. It was idle to suggest that they should take the milk from the council and ask the latter to pay them 7d. per gallon loss on all milk returned. Taking a typical case, counsel said that on a certain day in May the plaintiff company took 1960 gallons of milk from the corporation, and returned 65J gallons thereof. "Now,’’ commented Mr. O’Shea, "they want us to pay 7d. per gallon, or whatever it is, on these 65$ gallons.” Ha added that when the corporation had milk in large quantities which it could not dispose of to the vendors, it separated it in Wellington and sent the cream to Otaki to be made into butter. In 1920 the corporation separated milk right through April till about May 10, so that up to this time it Ciad more milk than the vendors could dispose of. Tho council secured every gallon of milk available, including whatever it could get from Featherston. As to the claims of short deliveries by the plaintiffs, he could produce evidence to show that from August last till April of this year their daily output had never exc-d'fdod an average of ISOO 'gallons. During the same period the council liad been separating milk which it could not sell to the vendors. Touching another point, counsel said that it was impossible to make a contract with the farmers for a definite quantity of milk. The corporation endeavoured to meet tho farmers in every way, but it was impossible to satisfy them. The result was' that this winter the council would get less milk from Featherston. “When I was a boy,” he added, "they used to get 3d. a gallon from the factory for milk; now they get 2s. a gallon, and are not satisfied. The whole thing is preposterous. This winter milk is a 'chuck, in’ to them. A cow has to be fed in the winter whether it is in milk or dry. The whole thing is a well-staged perUprmance. . . . Despite frequent increases in the prices paid by the corporation, we are getting no more milk. Tempting the Farmers.

His Honour: Won’t the City Corporation have to face the fact that dairy farmers require to be tempted by very big prices to supply milk in the winter, even though it may cost more to the consumers in the city?

Mr. O’Shea: Yes, an-d we thought we had imet it.

Counsel added that every allowance had been made for the high price ruling for butter-fat, and tho high price of land, in tho price allowed the farmers for their milk. To this end Id. per gallon had been put on to the price to customers all tho year round. The chairman of the Board of Trade bad said that tho price fixed for the milk supplied by the farmers was fair to the consumers and fair to tho producers, yet the corporation was not getting the milk. The council could not do impossibilities. It had gone last year to every possible place within IM miles of Wellington to.get milk, and the only available source that it did not tap was Featherston. As a matter of fact tho council thought that it had actually come to an arrangement with the Featherston farmers that the milk was to be supplied. It never anticipated that they ‘would subsequently demand more than the price agreed on with the nearby farmers, with the approval of the Board of Trade. His Honour: There is evidently some strong feeling running between the corporation and the vendors. In one part of the city on the corner of the account they Mind to the householder for milk there is a long screed attacking the council. , . Mr. O’Shea: That is the company that is going to bring the next action against the corporation. Costly Milk.

In emphasising the fact that the corporation had made ovary eifort to cope with the situation, Mr. O’Shea said that H expanded 28000 in five in order

to bring milk into the city during the railway strike. During April and May, 1920, despite the shortage, the corporation was getting hack 5 per cent, of the milk supplied to the distributors. The company gave tho corporation no credit for trying to get milk into the city during the strike, and gave it no .credit for taking back about* 100 gallons in one day when it was entitled to return only 50 gallons. Mr. O’Shea also raised the point that during the shortage the corporation was getting milk from unregistered dairies in the Manawatu. Whatever quantity of milk was derived from this source must, for the purpose of the present action, be deducted from any shortage. The companies could not ask the corporation to break the law and draw supplies from improper sources; yet, if it had obided by the law, the distributors would not have been getting the milk. "This, is ” proneeded counsel, “ a stand-and-deliver action.’’ , ~ , , His Honour: I think it would be advisable not to make these allegations, Mr. O’Shea. . Counsel did not pursue the point any further and in concluding his openingsaid that as regards the possibilities ofobtaining milk from Marlborough, this source of supply had been tried once when there was a much more frequent boat service than at present, but, he understood, it was held at the time to be a failure. . , . , Henry Albert Ward, assistant, general manager of tho corporation milk service, detailed the steps—previously outlined by Mr O’Rhea—taken by tho corporation to provide the fullest possible supply of milk for distribution in the city. The 1919-20 season was marred by a bad Was the increased price paid to the Wellington farmers based on the bad spring?

Witness: Yes. Witness produced the first contract with the Featherston Dairy Company, which provided for the council taking all the company’s milk at Is. 2d. per gallon the council to supply cans. Ihe price now was 2s. Id. per gallon. The council had never at any time been able to arrange with farmers to supply fixed quantities of milk during tho winter Further hearing of the case will be taken this morning.