DAIRY COMPANY CHARGED

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 60, 4 December 1937, Page 11

DAIRY COMPANY CHARGED

Differential Payments Not Made (By Telegraph—Press Association.) Dunedin, December 3. “This is the first case of its kind to be heard in New Zealand, and it is brought as a warning to dairy companies to comply with the department s regulations,” said Mr. E. S. Tuckw ell in conducting a prosecution in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. _ A charge was made against the Fairfield Co-operative Dairy Company of failing to differentiate by Id. a lb. in the price paid for first and second grade butterfat. Mr. H. W. Buddle, S.M., was on the bench. The charge was based on Regulation 10 of the Department of Agriculture’s regulations. 1933, the object of which, counsel said, was to encourage suppliers to produce first grade milk. For the purpose of inspecting the books of the company, Mr. D. Cunningham, of the department, had called at the factory. He had also wished to ascertain if the company was making differential payments on milk received from suppliers. He found that no such payments were made during the 1935-36 season, but in the following season a progressive payment and bonus were shown. In fairness to the company, he would say that it had decided to make the payment on a non-differential basis on account of the small number of suppliers. He mentioned that the company had now adopted the full regulation standard of payment. The quantity of second grade milk received during the 1936-37 season was 7.5 per cent of the total. The maximum penalty was £5O, but the department did not press for a penalty. The manager of the company said that it was not the company’s intention to defy the department’s regulation, but there was such a small percentage of second grade milk that it had been decided to pay only the first grade price. “These proceedings should serve as a warning to dairy companies generally,” commented the magistrate. As the payment involved so little money and the company had been open over the whole affair, he would not impose a fine. The company was ordered to pav costs (TO/-) and solicitors’ fees (£3/3/-).