BRICKMAKERS APPEAL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16762, 31 January 1918, Page 4

BRICKMAKERS APPEAL

THE NEW LYNN CASE.

HEARING FURTHER ADJOURNED.

Further evidence in the cuae in which Charles Gardner, manager and" .partner in the firm of Gardner Bros, anil, Parker, brickmakers, New Lynn (Mr. BKftnfield), appealed for exemption, was heard f)y the First Auckland -Military Service Bfofrd yesterday. The case was first heard ov> December 11, and a petition signed by* !59 people was presented by Mr. H. Green, urging that appellant should serve. The suggestion was also made that some of the brickmaking firms in Auckland, who had ceased making common bricks, received a bonus from other firms for not doing so. When the case was called yesterday, Mr. Stanton watched proceedings on behalf of the New Zealand Brick and Tile Company, who had previously been mentioned in the case. Mr. Blomtield said appellant, in appealing, was merely trying to do his best for his family and his business and partners. I Major Conlan appeared to have thought that there was some sort of "ring" to ,keep up the prices of bricks- but the evidence would show it was merely a business arrangement, which, if carried out by other trades, would release more men for service. To show how the arrangement j worked, counsel said the following prices i per 1000 bricks ruled in the places men- ! tioned Wellington. £3 6s 6d; AsbburI ton, £3 4s Id; Christchurch, £2 18s 9d; I Dunedin, £2 12s 3d; and Auckland, £2 I6s 6d. Since the Auckland Association had been formed there had been one rise before the war and one sin^e. Dependents of the Business. Louisa Gardner, mother of appellant, said before appellant took over the busi- , ness an elder brother managed it. It ' started to improve immediately appellant I took it over. Witness had threatened to I appeal if appellant did not appeal. One I son was at the front, and she would not

grudge Charles going if the business arrangements were satisfactory. Other sons had said they would go instead of Charles, if necessary, as it would be a hardship if the manager of the business were taken. An invalid daughter was supported by the business'. The home was supported partially by appellant and partially by witness. The daughter was employed in the business. Witness, assisted by appellant, also maintained two grandchildren. Witness received as her share of the business about £8 a week. ' To Major Coiilan: The brother who previously was manager was still in the business. This brother was also interested in a farm owned by the family, but he had not made a success of it. Another son might manage the business if given time. She agreed that one company could; make all the bricks required at present. Her son had not made her presents out of the business. John Owen Gardner, a brother of tli3 appellant, and a married man with six children, said he had been working at .the brick works, but was now farming. Charles had installed new machinery in the works, and at two .other places, and had improved the method of mixing. Witness knew -of nobody who could manage the place like his 'brother. Before conscription came into force witness suggested that rather than let Charles serve ; witness or another brother should serve,... < Rice 0. Gardner, another partner in the firm, said he was prepared to serve instead of Charles, considering that to be in the best interests of the family and business. To Major Conlan: The firm could supply bricks from stock for six months. Equalising of Orders'.

Euler Perkins, secretary of the Auckland Brickmakers' Association, said ho assisted with' the books of Gardner Bros, and Parker. Witness considered appellant a competent manager, and the only one in the firm capable of carrying on the business successfully. No other largo film was producing common bricks in Auckland- just now. ' . To "Major Coulan: Firms did not receive money for not making bricks. The position was that witness tried to equalise orders given to the various firms of the association. Some times the orders were

unequal, and to equalise them payments were made to the various firms receiving small orders by; ..those,\ receiving large orders. If, however, one firm supplied no bricks, the arrangement lapsed until further bricks were supplied. Latimer Clarke, mixer . for the firm, said that before appellant took charge 75 per cent, of the bricks were valueless and were sold as road metal, but since he came there was only the usual loss of 5 per cent. Mr. Blomfield objected to the petition which had been put in by 259 people, submitting that it was a wrong principle for any body to adopt to say a man should serve. That was. a matter for the board. The chairman agreed, but said that when the petition was backed by evidence it had more value. Mr. Blomfield suggested that if the New Zealand Brick and Tile Company would pay appellant 7s per ICOO for hi» share of the trade, appellant would close the business end the appeal could drop. Mr. Stanton said he would have to consujt his clients over the matter. I The case was adjourned until February 14.