FARMERS’ TROPHY

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 28 February 1928, Page 5

FARMERS’ TROPHY

THE SUTTON CUP.

AWARD REVISED. SUPRfIEIMEI COURT JUDGMENT. A case probably unique in the annals ol’ the courts of justice was heard before His Honour the Chief Justice. Sir Charles Skerrett, at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Charles G. CL Willis, a farmer pf Matapu, sought for a writ of mandamus to compel Messrs J. G. Ward and Co., Ltd.,' to deliver to him a cup awarded to Mr H. Betts, of Okaiawa, and claimed by plaintiff. Mr A. Iv. North appeared for plaintiff and Mr P. O’Dea fo.r defendant company. After a long hearing, lasting for four hours, during which a large number of witnesses were called, His Honour gave judgment that the cup should be awarded to Mr Willis and that as he had thus won it thrice it became his own property. In opening the case Mr North said the case centred round the Sutton Cup, donated in 1922 by the New Zealand representatives of Sutton’s seeds, Messrs J. G. Ward and Co.. Ltd., for the annual competition in South Taranaki, the three conditions being that (1) the cup be known as Sutton Cup, (2) the competition was open to any other growers’ seeds 'and (8) the cup was to be won thrice, not necessarily consecutively, before becoming the sole property of a winner. It was presented through Mr F. Gillanders, then agent in Hawera for Sutton’s, for the best crop of mangolds, half an acre, such crop having been entered through some recognised competition such as the Farmers’ Union executive of South Taranaki. The conditions were left to Mr Gillanders and Mr J. W. Deem and they decided that the territory should be that covered by the South Taranaki Farmers’ Union. The firm agreed that the cmp' should be competed for at the same time as the several local, competitions and that thereby increased friendly rivalry would be encouraged, and lead to a development in farming methods. The cup would thus be not a separate competition, Imt would follow the local contests, each entry in which would automatically compete for the cup. The donors stated that the date of entry need hot necessarily be as specified, but it was left to the local association to fix.

Counsel quoted freely from correspondence between the donors of the cup and their agents in Hawera, all dealing with this question of entries. But the firm stated that they considered if the best crop were found to be in a district which had no special condition re date of entry, that crop should be the winner. However, the firm said it was quite impartial in the matter’. The judges, it considered, should be the most fitted to decide.

Plaintiff affirmed, said counsel, that it was agreed by the executive that a date of entry was fixed at December 20, of each year and he entered and was placed second in 1927 to Mr H. Betts. But he claimed that the latter was not qualified to compete because his entry, he affirmed, was not received until April, 1927. Counsel quoted from the minutes of a meeting of the Farmers’ Union executive that a resolution was passed adopting rules and that a copy of notice was sent to all branches and it was recommended that any competitor ncit conforming to the rules he debarred from entry. Mr O’Dea: “A recommendation only.” The Matapu branch abided by these rules, said ' counsel, whereas possibly Manaia. was less careful. and. did not so conform. He added that in a previous year plaintiff had been debarred from competing, because he did not observe the rules. In this last case the cup had been awarded to a competitor entering a couple of weeks before the judging. Counsel, in suggesting a reason for the change <jf attitude, said Mr Deem had persuaded the executive that they had no right to pass rules. Actually the question of the date of closing, December 20. was expressly mentioned at a meeting of the.executive and the newspapers were urged to make this fact known.

To His ‘Honour, counsel explained that judging took place in May or June and that although*each branch had the righ to elect'their own judge, the same man had done practically all the work. The weight o.f the crop, with points for quality and cultivation, decided the winner. Willis, he said in reply to another question, was no party t<> the trust created by defendants, but if he succeeded he secured the cup. CASE! FOR. THE PLAINTIFF. .

Plaintiff, Willis, sard he won the cup in 11)23 and 1926. J. Bakers, of Manaia. being the first winner in 1922. He was present when the executive made the rule in reference to the date of entry, and he actually had been debarred from competing in 1924, because of this rule. In 1928 he had entered in November, sending his entry to the local secretary. While it Vas competent, as had been stated, for each branch to select a judge, Mr Deem had done practically all the work in 1927 and for several veans. He affirmed that Mr Betts’ entry was received in April, by which time he would know if the crop would be a good one. This would, he added, not be possible in December. The cup was said to be valued at 33 guineas. In reply to Mr O’Dea, plaintiff stated that he had not known Mr Betts and his son were in partnership and that the latter worked the farm. He did not know two crops had been entered v Mr G. Betts in November. "When the award was made he congratulated Jr Betts, whom he considered one o! ■atlire’s gentlemen. He handed the cup to Mr Salmon, manager of Messrs Newton King, Ltd., agents for Sutton’s seeds.

Referring to the local competitions, plaintiff said the entry fees of 6s each went partly to the expenses of the branch, and that the prizes generally .■ame from business men of the. district. Tne champion of champions won t- o button Cup—if entered by December 20, he added. He understood, other branches took entries late, but- considered these were liable to exclusion. Manaia actually, lie believed, took entries up to a day before the judgingHe bad been present at the meeting of delegates in 1923 when the resolution re date was referred to the branches, with a recommendation to make the closing date December 20. There had been no other body in South Taranaki running these competitions, but in the North there were others all. however, had to be bound by the rules. He stated that, though a formal acknowledgment of his protest had been received from the provincial .secretary, he had had no definite reply to his letters. He considered Air. Deem had nothing to do with the decisions so =oon as the judging was completed. ’Manaia branch was now defunct. Weights and other particulars had not been sent to him, hut to the local branch secretary.

7*lalntiiT said ho would not deny he had stated in on© of his letters that “Mr. Deem was a friend of Mr. Betts,” but he added that Mr. Deem was in every way a very fair judge. When he spoke to Mr. Deem about being struck out in 1924 the latter said he had not abided by the rules and must go out. His protest last year was sent in on July 4, 1927, and he affirmed- that Mr. Deem had no right to award the cup as lie had done.

ADOPTION OF RULES,

Mr. G. H. Buckeridge. a former secretary of the provincial executive, said the origin of the cup competition was an offer received by Mr. Gillanders from his principals to donate a cup. He briefly referred to the first meetings in 1922, when rules were adopted of which Mr. Gillanders approved, and he then notified -branches. These miles were unanimously adopted, and it was agreed that competitors not conforming to them would be debarred. . No objection was raised during his term of office. the branches being under the control of the executive. He stressed the importance, of the closing day, stating that otherwise a competitor would wait to see how the crop was progressing before entering. In reply to Mr. O’Dea, witness said it was a good idea to carry out the rules.

His Honour agreed, and said' that sucli competitions must have rules, otherwise there would be chaos.

To Mr. O’Dea, witness said there was no other association at that time, but there would he this year. His Honour, addressing counsel, said their was no need for heat—it was not a State trial —and that the question was simplicity itself (1) what were the rules, and (-2) have they been complied with or not. Referring to- this question, Mr. Noith said the defendant company had been all along very fair in their attitude. Mr. J. Dalvers, called by Mr. North, deposed that he had been president of the Manaia branch, and remembered the rule re closing date adopted by the conference of delegates, at which h© and Messrs. Muggeridge and Jones were present. The minutes showed that Manaia adopted the rules, and Mr. Betts afterwards became a member, on April 2, 1927. But at the date of closing of entries Mr. Betts was neither a member nor eligible to compete. He himself won the cup in 1922, arid had been exceedingly close up ever since, “On one occasion,” said witness to Mr. O’Dea, “I was only half a point behind Mr. Willis.” There were no written entries, members just saying they' would enter, and these names were jotted -down. The Sutton Cup contest automatically followed- on the branch competitions." He was present, he said, when Mr. G. Betts entered two crops in October. 1926. ’ and actually only two were judged. He . remembered the incident of a transfer of one entry from “G.” to “H.” Betts, it being stated that “Dad- had .been weeding one crop,” and the request was made to change the name- of the entry.

Mr. C. E. McGuinness, Mang-atoki, deposed' that he knew the closing day of the Sutton Cup competition, and his branch had had notice from the secretarv. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

Mr. O’Dea, putting the case for the defence, said that Mr. Deem’s letter to Messrs. J. G. Ward and Co. had put the case very -succciritly. Actually, he said, the Farmers’ Union had nothing to do with the conditions of competition. He repeated the conditions set down by/the donating firm in regard bo the- cup. Mr. Gillanders had stated that any 'mangold seed could be used, not only Sutton’-s, -showing the liberalitv of the donors. ■

"The South Taranaki district covered the country between the -Patea and Waiau Rivers. Willis’s crop was thirty tons below the winning crop, hut he protested against the award of the cup to Mr. Betts because the date of entry had been fixed at December 20. Mr. Deem did not know that entries had been made by Mr. G Betts in October,1926. "

Mr. North: “This was an ingenious move to transfer E. G. Betts’ entry to H. Betts.” He said that Mr. O’Dea had not given him all details, but the latter said he had given verbally all he knew.

His Honour: “Air. O’Dea says he told his friend everything, but this is much too vague for me. No advantage was ever gained by slipshod methods, and too irequently statements are made as to verbal arrangements, but they were entirely unsatisfactory.”

. Continuing, Air. O’Dea said Air. Deem had nothing to do. with awarding the cup. There was nothing binding on the branches in regard to date of entry for the Sutton Cup, which just automatically followed on the oranch competitions iAianaia had not fixed a date. Air. E. G. Betts entered two crops in October, and one of these won the competition. Air. E. G. Betts had asked in April, 1927, that a transfer of one entry be made, and this was done. There was no fresh entry Air! O’Dea called Air. J. W. Deem, who gave details of a discussion he had had with Air. Duthie at Palmerston North in regard to the conditions xor the cup. They had decided to make the competition as free as possible, for cest mangolds entered in a regularly organised competition in the district .rain the Patea River to Waiau, but it did not coincide with the Farmers’ Union boundaries. Afterwards it was altered to coniine the contest to the union district of South Taranaki. In other districts there were settlers’ associations, m one or two cases dairy companies’ organisations. He judged mostly, and in some cases his assistant, and in 1927. in his opinion, Air. H. Betts won the cup with a crop equal to 128 tons per acre, the next best beino’ Mr. AViliis’s, 96 tons. He understood that the executive recommended a fixed date for closing, but some crunches did not stick to this and took entries a day before the judging. If, however, a branch made rules, members would have to abide by them. He had nothing to do with this, but was. there only to judge all that were put be ore him. He judged two crops oI .etts’s in the same locality. He had nothing to do with the cup, which was ■banded back by AVillis to Sutton s representative. He had always sent typed ,-opies of the results of the judging to the branches. ' He had not on any o •tasion corresponded on the subject with the executive. His department was careful to make no reference to any particular association. They considered the competitions of great value, f, however, there were mo organisation controlling them they would be of no . alue educationally. Replying to Air. North, Air. Deem said that in South Taranaki there had „een no organisation but the Farmers’ Union. A local organisation must govern its own members. He agreed that a branch might specify a. date enclosing for its own competitions, and that a competitor had to be a member to qualify. Mr. Betts could not have come in unless he was a qualified member of the union. The branches adopted the rule, hut some did not follow it out. If the rule were binding, then, he admitted, Willis must win He knew nothing of the transfer of entry,

but .was told it was late. Matapu, he said, had won the cup four; years in succession. He acknowledged Willis was a tip-top farmer, he said in reply to Mr. North.

His Honour: “But we are not trying ’ Mr. Willis in his capacity as a fanner. This is only waste'of time.”

GIFT OF THE CUP.

Mr. Robert Duthie, Christchurch manager for Messrs J. G. Ward and Co., gave particulars of the donation, and said that though they had given over a hundred cups, “this was the- 1 first time a competitor had tried to win on a technical point.” He en-' dorse d the information given bv Mr. Deem as to conditions, and said it was only recently that he had known the Farmers’ - Union in the matter. He laid down conditions in his -letter to Mr. Gillanders.

To Mr. North, he said that the latter had been in touch with the union, aud subsequently lie had expressed his wish to make it four times winning before becoming a man’s own property. He understood, there was no special entry for the cup, but that it followed on the local competitions. His Honour: “A muri should lay down definite rules, for if this were not done it would be a certain cause of trouble.” He agreed that the cup competition was useful, but conditions were needed.

Mr. E. G. Betts deposed that ho attended at a Manaia meeting on October 26 and gave two entries verbally, no locality being mentioned, in Ms own name, one swedes and one mangolds. He had later asked for the transfer to his father of the mangolds, and to this no objection had been made. The rule was there that a competitor must be a member, and his lather was enrolled at a later meeting. ; .; To Mr. North: The particular crop was on his father’s, land.

Mr J. T. Clague, honorary secretary of Manaia branch, produced a memo hook showing entries made, and said he recalled Mr. G. Betts entering two mangold crops and one being transferred later.

His Honour remarked on the book showing two mangold entries and Mr. Betts stating that he entered one of each.

Mr.' E. J. Betts stated that there was no hard and fast rule in Manaia branch. The entries would be for the partnership crops. To Mr. North he said that if they had observed the rule about dates they would have had no competitions. Mr. E. K. Cameron, provincial secretary. of the Farmers’ Union from 1924 onwards, referred to the meeting of the executive in 1926 when attention was drawn to the rules regarding entries, and on inquiry he found they were not being carried out by all branches. • .

To Mr. North, he said the executive was part and parcel of the union, and that the minute hook showed the closing date was made at the last meeting in December. He said that it was not correct to state that the executive had allowed themselves to be persuaded by Mr. Deem. In his committee it was the general opinion that Mr. H Betts should be the winner.

Mr. F. Gillanders confirmed the matter of receiving instructions regarding the cup, and the donation made of the Sutton Cup by Messrs J. G. Ward and Co. to stimulate competition in root crop growing. To the -best of his knowledge he said the cup’ was not. handed over to the union to run. The cup had been returned each year for the purpose of getting the inscription made

. His Honour: The object of the cup is to entourage better cultivation, and this wou.d be better served by preentry than no entry at all. If they waited till near the date there: would not be the same inducement to practise cultivation of the crop.

Id Mr North, Mr Gillanders said he wa-s, aware- Matapu had -a fixed closing date. FM recognised the competition, but had no hand in it at all.. He had to award the cup to" "a recognised competitor. . „ COUNSELS’ ADDRESSES. ’ This concluded the case yor-the defence, and counsel then -addressed the Court.

Mr O’Dea. said his main ' argument was that no date, of closing had been general, but that secretaries took entries up to just before* the • date of judging. For this reason he argued that Air H. Betts’s entry was in time. Air G. Betts had entered two crops of mangolds arid one was the crop that won. The . method was very loose, merely . calling for entries. Mr G. Betts' was justified in asking in April for a transfer, making one entry for hi into If ■and one for Air H. Betts. In fact they were made for H. Betts and son, and the secretary was at fault in not thus entering' them. Actually in this case the .second best was asking to be adjudged the winner. The transfer was justified and,'AVillis, he considered, could not succeed. ’ - bAir North .said plaintiff had,, in his opinion, proved his case. The condition was a half-acre of mango ds, and the branch delegates had passed a rendition regarding the date of- entry of crops. Now it was suggested that .a union had no right to pass a rule in regard to closing dates. The crops entered had to conform to the conditions; laid down by this executive. He submitted that-Air H. Betts did not have a transfer, and Air G. Betts said he entered one crop of mangolds and cue of swedes. ’ He suggested that, the entry with name of Betts was irregular. He: would like to add that .Air H Betts was a man held -in the highest regard and esteem by. everyone who knew him. He added that in the past ulaintiff had been penalised, and. that Air Betts should have been so in the present case. The evidence was uosatislaetbiv in law, and it could not support the statement of ane entry being putin for H Betts and Son and one for G. Betts. If the entry was irregular, then Wikis must be the winner. JUDGAIENT FOR PLAINTIFF. His Honour said he liad no hesitation in assuming Air Betts’s entry was late. His opinion was that AVillis was the winner of the competition. The competition was practically''confined to tile Farmers’ Union, though other similar bodies had the right to hold, theoompetition. It was contended that no rules had been inacte regulating the competition, but it had heen proved that tip cun had to lie competed for in regularly organised competitions pmong iriotli Taranaki farmers. His Honour referred to the combined meeting of delegates of the Farmers’ - Union executive, when the need oi rules and regulations was made quite plain. It was clear that the company should have laid down conditions, but they did not do so, and delegated their powers to. the Farmers’ Union. At. a general meeting of the exceutiye rides were laid down specially dealing with date of entry, and these were sent out to all branches. .These could not be varied unless J- G. Ward and Co- took lotion in the matter. ' . ; Vi These rules, he said, were observed by some branches, but not by others, and disregard of the rules coud not affect the position. He agreed with Air Deem as to the value of the competiions. and said that the Department was to be commended for taking such •i keen and active interest in matters

affijcting the farmer. But, he. said, tho value was discounted when, as was the ease with some branches, entries were taken right up to the time of judging. He could not .agree that air Bette s entry was in time. Actually at tho linn.' of tho transfer referred to Mr H. Hqtts was not, according to the rules the union, eligible to compete. The fact, however, that he and his .son were in partnership had some bearing on the question. There was, however, no clear (Statement on the matter of the alleged transfer of the entry from &. Betts to H. Betts. He believed that tHe whole matter arose out of a desire on the part of the sons to please their father; but that was not the question at is&Wi would point out that there was no clear statement that the matter of the transfer would be set up part of the defence- It was open at any tirruo for the. copany to have dravtn up I 'a code of regulations to govern the competition, and it had been open to a domestic tribunal to decide the matter. He knew of no worse process for such a matter than a court of law, and certainly a more expensive procedure. His view was that plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that he had won the cun three times in succession, and that it now became liis own. property. Be would make an order awarding him £3O damages, reducible to a_ farthing provided the cun were handed over within one month. . , Mr O’Dea said that J. G. Ward and Co. had been forced into tin? position and costs should be waived. Mr North said that his client had had a lot of expense and should get CO His Honour .said he was entitled to costs on tho lowest scale. Ho further commented in. the bringing of such a case to the Supreme Court, and in -delere nee to "the •snpfGiOGtrion tli nt a. .tirost | was involved he would issue a certificate. ■ ""