A "TIED" MILK SHOP.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14133, 7 August 1909, Page 6

A "TIED" MILK SHOP.

INTERESTING DAIRY CASE.

A QUESTION OF LIABILITY.

Unusual ' interest, attached to a prosecution in the Police Court yesterday against A. Leonard, proprietor of the Belfast Dairy, Victoria-street, that ho did, through his servant, Mrs. Kelly, sell milk from which a certain proportion of the cream had been abstracted- The milk was purchased from Mrs. Kelly, who denied responsibility, alleging that alio was simply the agent of defendant, who, on the other hand, claimed that she must bo regarded as a principal party. The prosecution alleged that the establishment conducted by Mrs. Kelly in Drake-street was simply a branch of defendant's business, and was in the same position as a "tied" hotel. Mr. 8. Mays appeared for the prosecution, and stated that a number of dairies wcro in the sarao position as this one. Mr. W. Fallon appeared for the defence. Mr. E. C. Cuttcn, S.M., occupied the Bench.

Mr. Mays said tho real point at issue was whother Mrs. Kelly was the principal or responsible person, or whether she was the servant, agent, or manager of the defendant. He had taken' a statement from Mrs. Kelly, and it disclosed a peculiar set of facts with regard to the tenancy- Defendant was her landlord, and she was a weekly tenant, and paid 8s a week, but that was apparently tho value of the living accommodation attached to tho shop. Mrs. Kelly was apparently compelled to purchase her supplies from defendant, and to sell at a price fixed by him. She had to purchase milk at lOd or 10J,d pof gallon, and sell at 3id or 4d per quart. " A similar arrangement applied with regard to butter and eggs, defendant being supplied with butter at Id per lb and eggs at Id per dozen below the price at which he sold theso commodities. She was apparently, in the portion of a del credere agent, being compelled to pay for her supplies periodically, whether she had sold them or not. r j Kelly was not a principal party; she had no interest in the business; there was no goodwill, and sho could bo put out at a week's notice. The utensils in the shop belonged to defendant, and Mrs. Kelly paid nothing for tho use of them. She had no license. So far as tho city authorities were concerned, they did not- know Mrs. Kelly as a milk vendor. Since sho had gone out of the shop, the new tenant had applied for a license as the manager for the defendant. Mr. Fallon said defendant knew nothing of this, and had not authorised it. Tho Magistrate: Under whoso name wa9 the business carried on? Mr. Mays said it was carried on as the "branch Belfast Dairy." Mrs. Kelly resembled a publican in a " tied" house, who was simply a manager. In that case the law regarded tho person or company holding tho license as the principal- Mrs. Kelly had complained to the inspector of tho milk supplied to her. _ . In cross-examination, Mrs. Kelly admitted that sho sold soft drinks, in which defendant had no interest.

The defence was a denial of ownership as regards the business carried on in the shop. Defendant, it was alleged, was the supplier and landlord of the premises, but made no stipulation as logards tho prices charged to the public for the goods supplied by him, and had no responsibility for the supplies after they left his hands. As regards tho sign over the shop conducted by Mrs. Kelly in Drake-street, it had been put there by a previous landlord. The only right defendant had was the supply of milk, butter, and eggs. Tho magistrate said the defence was that Mrs. Kelly was a milk vendor. It was perfectly well known to the defendant that under the city by-laws no person was entitled to sell milk unless he held a license Jo do so, and he admitted that Mrs. Kelly had no license, and he did not wish her to be licensed, because, to use his own words, "she might put him out of tho business." It seemed to be quite clear that defendant knew what he was doing, and put Mrs. Kelly into the shop, and arranged that she should sell his milk, he himself holding the license. He was liable, and would be fined £3, and costs £2 17s.