CITY MILK SUPPLY

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 68, 13 December 1932, Page 11

CITY MILK SUPPLY

(Nearby Farmers’ Rights PURCHASE LIMIT Supreme Court Ruling Au important decision arising out of the Wellington City Milk Supply Amendment Act, 1920, was given in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr. Justice Reed, on an appeal from the decision of Mr. E. Page, S.M., In the Police Court. His Honour found that the section in question was an absolute prohibition against any licensee purchasing milk, as he had the right to sell as much as he could produce, but he was not entitled to. purchase any milk except with the one qualification of a sudden shortage, to enable him to supply, regular, customers. In that case the amount was limited to five gallons. Section 19F of the Act says: “No licensee shall purchase milk from any person or persons other than the corporation save that in the case of a sudden emergency or of a shortage in his supply of a temporary nature, and not exceeding at any one time fourteen days, a licensee may purchase not more than five gallons of milk in any one day from another licensee.” , Frank Kettlewell, farmer, Newlands, appealed. from the decision of Mr. E. Page, S.M. Appellant was convicted of assisting, on May 18, 1931, in the purl chase of milk 'by Alphpnse Joseph Casey, farmer, Ngaio, the holder of a license, from a person other tha,n the ’Wellington City Corporation, and was fined £5/1/-. Mr.. Mazengarb was for the appellant, and Mr. J. O’Shea for the City Corpora? tion. Reasons for Conviction. The magistrate's . conviction : was made upon the evidence that Kettlewell drove a milk lorry into Kaiwarra and deposited 25 gallons of milk on a section, there. About t,wo hours later Casey’s employee, a mtlu named Aplin, picked up the milk and proceeded to serve it to customers in Kaiwarra. A similar procedure took place the following morning. In giving his decision the magistrate said: “it is to be noted that the statute prohibits, within the limits above mentioned, the purchase of milk by a nearby farmer, and does not state that such prohibition' applies only to milk purchased for sale within the city. Assuming, however, that by inference the prohibition applies only to milk purchased for selling within the city, I think that Casey must be convicted.” Mr. O’Shea,* who dealt with the Act at some length, said that Casey had a farm at Ngaio. He and Kettlewell were licensees. On several occasions prior to May IS the appellant had supplied milk in the manner described, and counsel submitted that it was a scheme between the two to infringe on the principles of the whole scheme of the city milk supply. A lot of milk was being brought into the city from Wairarapa.' Replying to his Honour, counsel said Casey had been convicted but had not appealed,' Kettlewell’s submission was that there was no case that the milk was purchased for sale in the city. The charges against Casey were established, and that Kettlewell was knowingly a. party to having assisted Casey in committing the offence. "No Evidence of Guilty Knowledge.” Mr. Mazengarb urged that there was no prohibition against a nearby farmer or any other farmer against selling bis milk except for the restriction that one must not sell for distribution within rhe city. Casey was outside the city boundary. The prohibition was against Hie sale of milk for delivery within the city. It would have been quite lawful 'for Kettlewell to have' separated ' the milk, and for Casey to have receiv- . oil the cream. He would have been entitled to buy up to five gallons of milk or cream to sell within the city. . Mr. O’Shea: Not live gallons of cream. Mr. Mazengarb contended that there was no evidence of guilty knowledge. It was found that, part of Casey’s round was in Ngaio, which was. outside the city, and it was lawful for Kettlewcll to sell to Casey for delivery outside the city. Mr. O'Shea: There is no evidence that it was delivered outside the city. Mr. Mazengarb: Why should Kettlewell be fixed with lhe duty of inquiring, when he enters into a sale with another farmer, whether that farmer intends using the - milk unlawfully ? ... With the right to carry on his trade at stake, he.is entitled to something more, than mere evidence of suspicion. Counsel added that the milk was put iu the same.place every day, and left for two hours or more. There was no change of parking-place to hoodwink the inspectors, such as had been suggested by Mr. O'Shea. Casey used his own milk to supply his customers, although he could have used live gallons in the city area. . His Honour ruled that there was a * primu facie ease to answer. Appellant’s Evidcnee. Appellant' gave evidence, saying he arranged to supply his surplus milk to Casey, but did not know where Iris round extended except that it was between Khandallah, Johnsonville, and Ngaio. He had not been warned that he was not entitled to sell bis milk to Casey. There were no restrictions on him selling 25 gallons a day to hotels or restaurants. If it was a breach to sell milk as he had done it was condoned by the City Corporation, for it was going on daily with the full knowledge of the corporation. Mr. O’Shea: Not with the knowledge of the corporation. You are the first man we have managed to catch. Appellant: It has been going on for years, and it is going on to-day. Mr. O’Shea pointed out that the fivegallon limit was made so that in cases of emergency they would not have to go to the depot for it. Replying to Mr. O’Shea, appellant said the arrangement with Casey at first was that he should go to the farm for the milk. Later he (appellant) arranged to leave it at Kaiwarra as that was the only place where the respective vehicles crossed each other's tracks. It saved him a two-niile journey to the farm. After further argument his Honour gave the ruling that the only exemption was the purchase of five gallons to meet an emergency or shortage. Mr. Mazengarb pointed out that, it was the first case of. the .kind, and it was ihe first time it had been suggested that it was an offence to assist in that way. He asked that the penalty might be reduced. His Honour dismissed the appeal, but reduced the fine to £2 and costs, with £7/7/- costs on the appeal.