DECISION RESERVED

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 16, 13 October 1933, Page 11

DECISION RESERVED

Question of Supply of Cream

and Milk

CONCLUDING ARGUMENT Decision was reserved by the Court of Appeal yesterday in the case in which the court was asked to determine whether clause 55 of the Dairy Regulations, 1933, is "ultra vires” insofar as it prohibits dairy factories from accepting new suppliers during the course of the current season. The parties named were John Charles Carroll and William James Keeley, farmers, Te Aroha, plaintiffs, and the At-torney-General, defendant. The court comprised the chief justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice MacGregor, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Smith. Mr. G. P. Finlay, with him Mr. L. P. Leary, both of Auckland, appeared for plaintiffs, and the Solicitor-Gener-al, Mr. A. Fair, K.C., for the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr. Finlay, in reply, submitted yesterday morning that inasmuch as the word "grading” in the 1908 Act referred to the grading of butter and cheese, It could not now extend to the grading of something else, otherwise cream and milk. Grading was essentially a definite series of acts, which were all well understood in the industry, and they depended upon the operation of certain physical senses, counsel continued. That raised in sharp contrast the extraordinary effect of regulation 55 because it made one ask how the maintenance of a supply to the factory could have any effect upon the process of grading. There was no possible connection between the maintenance of a supply and the process defined as grading. That was the true basis upon which the issue before the court could be determined. It was not in substance a grading regulation within the purview of the 1 enactment, and it was only as a grading regulation that the Solicitor-General had attempted to support it. The Solicitor-General said that his submission was that under the general power of grading any other matters necessary to the efficient administration of the power were included. If the regulation achieved the main purpose of the Act It was justified. The Solicitor-General wanted to say that the discretion entitled him to go outside the scope of the Act, and to legislate on matters which had merely a consequential effect on some of the operations which could be regulated, Mr. Finlay continued. It was true that the Act did give certain specific rights to interfere with the terms upon which contracts might be made, but nowhere did it interfere with the general right of freedom of contract. Decision was reserved.