DAIRY CONTROL BOARD

Evening Star, Issue 19385, 20 October 1926, Page 11

DAIRY CONTROL BOARD

CASE BEFORE APPEAL BOARD WAITAKI COMPANY SEEKS INJUNCTION [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, October 19. Argument was beard before the Full Court of Appeal to-day in respect to an injunction which is being sought by the Waitaki Dairy Company, Ltd., restraining the Dairy Produce Control Board from assuming control of the dairy produce manufactured for export from milk or cream purchased outright from producers, and from selling or disposing of such produce. On the bench were their Honors Mr Justice Sim, Mr Justice MacGregor, Mr Justice Reed, and Mr Justice Ostler. Sir John Findlay, K.C. (with him Mr J. S. Hanna), appeared on behalf of the plaintiff company, and Mr A. W. Blair (with him Mr R. M'Veagh and Mr P. B. Cooke) for the Dairy Produce Control Board. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. The statement of claim was that the plaintiff company was a proprietary dairy company, and not a co-operative dairy company, and that plaintiff purchased milk or cream outright from producers and manufactured the produce into butter or cheese, the greater part of which was sold in New Zealand, the remainder being exported for sale in England. The plaintiff firm claimed that it did not receive milk or cream from producers for manufacture into butter or cheese, nor did it purchase milk or cream upon terms requiring the plaintiff to pay a price, or return, to the producer dependent upon the price realised on the sale of the produce, whether in New Zealand or in England. The statement continued that the Control Board claimed that no contract for the carriage of the plaintiff’s dairy produce to be exported from New Zealand after September 1, 1926 (the date from which the board resolved that absolute control should operate), should he made save by the board itself acting as agent for the plaintiff, or in conformity with conditions to be approved by the board. The hoard claimed that it was entitled after the date named

to eel! and dispose of the product which plaintiff exported, and it threatened that it would sell and dispose of all such dairy produce unless restrained by ’ the court", and make arrangements for j the handling, looling, storage, shipment, sale, and disposal of the pro- , dupe. The board further claimed that ! the produce which plaintiff might pro--1 need to export from New Zealand after i September 1. 1926, for sale in England i should be shipped only as the_ board directed, and should ho sold or disposed I of only by the board, or at its direction, at such time, in such manner, and j upon such terms as it determined in its ! discretion. | The plaintiff company argues that the | board is not entitled to sell and dispose ; of its produce exported from New Zea- ■ laud on and after September 1, 1926, and that the company is entitled to disI nose of its produce as it pleases, and to make contracts for the carriage of the produce by sea, and to ship it free from the hoard’s control. The company ! also seeks a declaration that it may export its produce free from the hoard’s control. THE BOARD’S DEFENCE. The statement of defence denied the main allegations of the plaintiff, and the board stated that all > the acts, matters, and things complained of by the plaintiff in the statement of claim would be done by it, pursuant to the powers and authorities conferred upon it by the Dairy Produce Export Control Act, 1923. It was contended that the statement of claim did not disclose any cause of action against defendant. SIR JOHN FINDLAY’S ADDRESS. Sir John Findlay said the sneredness of British rights was involved in the case. The judicatures of the nation had always been the guardians of private liberties. Following the clearlyexpressed will of the Legislature, the trade or business of the production of butter and cheese had been built up under our law, and the question was whether it was struck at so severely that it must go out. After briefly sketching the facts, counsel said plaintiff had no representative on the board. Mr Justice Reed: He has to n certain extent. The Government appoints a representative to represent the buyers.

Sir John contended that there was no direct representation. Tho board eakl it would export produce, insure it. transport it, sell and dispose of it “ at such times, in such manner, and on such terms as we (the board) determine.” In the Act it was provided that the hoard was under no obligation to consider tho wishes of tho owners of the proprietary dairy companies. The court could thus see whnt enormous powers were given tho board over the property of the companies. Sir John said there was no liability upon tho hoard, and it was the producer who stood to suffer by any nets of negligence, etc., on the part of the hoard.

Mr Justice Reed asked whether Sir John was not making an attack upon tho principle of the Act.

| Counsel said he was referring to the safeguarding of private property and to the law which laid down the safeguards. i Sir John went on to quote legal pre- ! cedents in support of the contention that the word “ producers ” in the Act mount that it should be limited to suppliers of milk and cream to dairy factories. Ho submitted that it would not necessarily be confined strictly to co-operative factories. He had been astonished in working up his argument to find how much of the Act when analysed said that that was tho intention of tho Legislature. He submitted that if tho appellants were manufacturing hemp, and were buying flax from the growers and suppliers, they would have the right to carry on the business of hemp growers and deal with their property ns they chose, but because they were a proprietary dairy company they were to have their products taken from them and controlled by the hoard. 'Continuing his address. Sir John Findlay eaid that if tho Act were not interpreted in the manner ho suggested the destruction of private rights was involved. Tho interpretation put on the Act by defendants involved tho extinction of the rights of growers. In Queensland the judges refused to interpret the Act in this manner, and he thought that tho court hero should take the same attitude. An examination of the Meat Export Control Act. 102]-22. was the real kev to tho Dairy Control Act. 1923. Air Justice Ostler: Did the 1,500 suppliers of your company have tho opportunity of voting? Sir John Findlay: In some cases they did not, and in some cases they did. If the suppliers choose to sell their butter and cream to proprietary factories they lose their character as producers. Air Justice Reed: It is admitted that your factory manufactures dairy produce for export. Sir John Findlay proceeded with his argument, quoting a number of legal authorities in support. The court adjourned until to-morrow shortly after Air Blair commenced for defendants. Air Blair contended that there was uo such thing under the Act as a proprietary factory, and that the Dairy Control Act, 1923, came into effect only when the export was considered, and existed only for the purposes of export regulation.