MEAT COMMISSION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 6 May 1925, Page 8

MEAT COMMISSION.

FURTHER EVIDENT I

(.BY TIiUISGKAFB —I’IUiSS ASSOCIATION• GISBORNE, May 4. At the Meat Commission yesterday afternoon. Frederick Tolerton. manager or tiie Gisborne branch of Nelson's, said it was true that in the 192 U-21 season an eneclavour iiad been made to get clients to consign through the C.C. and I>. (jo. Clients who consistently consignrd to that company would support the firm’s action as they continued, to secure good prices. Since that -season;, open works had been kept. . l)ea mg with the purclia.se of. the. Waipaoa (Covet ty Bay Coy.) works. witness said that in February. 192:1, he had been approached by \\ itters and -Matthews, who asked if Vesteys 1 neie likely to he interested in the purchase of the works. Witness said that Rowlands was -the man to deal, with, nua asked if they had the authority oi -thedirectors. They replied in. the negative, but said that if l.ysimr agreed the other direttiir.s would agree. An appoint me at was made- • with R'O" lauds, and witness, Matthews and \\ ittei s .discussed the matter, Rater in the year Rowlands, Yes toy. TruiL (Condon) am Duncan, (construction engineer) visited the three local works; but no mention was made of .buying Waipaoa.. At the bitter place Rowlands conferred pnvatelv w : ith the directors. -At the sale of the works witness bid- £2‘2o,(NH), : having received instruct.ions I ram the Hastings office. Witness detailed the expenditure necessary since taking o\ei the works, the total amount involved being £2-9,600. To -Mr Cvsnar: Witness said they gave clients’ stock preference in killing. . . . . To further questions, .witness said it was proposed to scrap the trucks insulated with wood shavings. Ho was not aware 'that- the Railway Department. provided haH the trucks in this district and the company half. In fact, he didn't know any other company: works in New Zealand under sucli.au arrangement. He had been unable to obtain an arrangement with the Railway Department for - the supply of trucks.- , Mr Ly.su tir'.said he thought there was a second br6a<-li in coiiHeotion with Vesteys carrying on the old Tariiheru works without applying for .a transfer of the license to the Minister of Agriculture. ( .... The chairman: V'hat section of the order of reference does that come under:-' Are we here to try Vesteys lor some alleged breach years ago? Mr Lysnar: From the time of coming here some years ago, absolutely, absolutely. . The chairman : There is no need to get heated about it. Mr Lysnar said it was the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to act in the public interest. Were Vesteys -acting m the public interest in the interests of the Dominion ? Were they doing something to injure the producers 4 The chairman said the Minister could not have the knowledge of any act of Vesteys some years ago. Mr Lysnar: But he should have. The chairman said it appeared the question could’not be raised under section 2.

Mr Lysnar said he regarded it as very serious, as by their action \ osleys had disregarded the law and had forfeited their right to equable consideration from the Government. \ esteys had the old Tanihe.ru' works' in 1920, but had not applied for a license to operate till March. 1921. so that the firm did not have tile right to continue operations. Mr Lysnar said' the matter was open to public discussion in 1919, and in March, 1920. a letter was forwarded to Nelsons by the Cook County Council concerning the transfer.

Mr Lysnar: You were here in December, .1.920!- —Yes. Vesteys were, then in control at the Taruhem works ? —Yes. And you will find in your office a letter from tiie Cook County Council in March, 1920, giving consent to operate. That might not lie the date of the transfer, but you only made application a few , weeks previously.-—1 don’t know. , ' . ' \ 1 would ask you to produce a copy of the articles " (if • association.— I haven’t, got a copy. Haven’t you got one in your office? —There is a copy in the office at Hastings. Can you get a copy—-No.

Prior to 'the sale of the works to Vesteys. the old Taruheru works business was carried on by the Bank of Aus'tmliisia ? —Yes.. Ann after that the business was transferred to the National Hank of New Zealand —Yes. Did instructions to transfer the account come from Homer—Not my instructions. M r l/vsnar asked witness if .Mr Zyman. Vesteys’ solicitor, had attended the Commission in Gisborne. The answer was: He is here for one and a half days to two days. Did he attend the Commission, in Wellington ?-— Yes. Mr I ,ysn:ir: While he was here he was supplying information to counsel on the other side. Witness: I was sitting with him. Air Lysnar: Vou have been passing over such information. Witness: I gave no information on matters not in accordance with facts. Air Lysnar: Otherwise you might have been represented by counsel. Witness: .It was not necessary. Air Lysnar: I ahi going to suggest to die Commission at the proper time that your company has been well represented on the other side. C I S HO PIN'It. Alay d. At to-day's session of the AJeat Coin.inis.sion, a. discussion, arose, on a point raised by Air. Hysnai; that when the Taniheru works, were transfer red in 191!) from Nc.lsoiiiS to Vestey*. the lytlor cl.icl not take the. proper legal steps to ’secure- the authority to carry Oil. The chairimi.n said ho wanted to be perfectly fair to Vesteys,- and ■ would like to hear someone mi their -be I rail express an opinion as to the. admissibility of tbe evidence which miglii result in a charge being brought against the firm for an alleged illegal action, Air. Lysnar contended that Ve»tey«j had been operating for twelve months before, and took the necessary steps under the Slaughtering Inspection Act to secure a transfer of the license. Mr. Taylor said he felt, certain that the required evidence could be procured from the Government records at Wellington, and these would show that the Government’s action had been quite correct. Mr. Lysnar proceeded to put further questions* to Air. Toler ton, Vestey s local manager, re the commission paid to merchants, but the chairman, said that they were concerned with what happened at the time 'Vestey® were the owners, of other works 1 , and were, not now concerned with Vesteys.’ . present actions, which might be the subject of another tribunal., which might have to consider whether Vesteys- license should ho renewed or revoked. He ruled, therefore, that ATr. Lysnar could not obtain evidence iiivregard to ihe commi's-ions- to mercantile firms.. The commission was • not now - trying nn.y possible delinfpieneiei* Vestey* may now he committing.

James Wrev Nolan (chairman of directors of the" Gisborne Sheep- Farmers' Co) called by Mr. D. Jones., stated that he had discussed the proposed sale to Vesteys with Ins directors, and cabled the statement tlm,t- his direetors preferred: Vesteys to purchase. This was a correct indication of the feeling. He did: not see why hist coninanv should be adversely affected bj Vesteys, provided the fanners .stood loyal to their own works A large number of them were loyal.