DAIRY FARMERS SUED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8739, 22 May 1914, Page 6

DAIRY FARMERS SUED

TROUBLE ABOUT FACTORY GUARANTEE. Press Association. - NEW PLYMOUTH, May 21. At the Supremo Court to-day Mills and Sparrow, Ltd., London, sued William Sandeson and David Jamieson j Bruce for £3102 3s 6d alleged to be due on a guarantee in. connection with the Ohura Dairy Company. Th© case for the plaintiffs was that in 1907 some settlers of Ohura, including the defendants, were, minded to have a dairy factory in the district and entered into negotiations with Messrs E. Griffiths and Co., of New Plymouth, the New Zealand representatives of Mills and Sparrow, for financial assistance. Finally an agreement was entered into on April 18th, 1907, between E. Griffiths and Co. and the settlers. It was agreed that Griffiths should erect and equip a factory at Nihoniho and creameries at Mangapapa and Mangaroa, at the cost of the settlers; that a 00-operative dairy factory company ho formed, and that when the factories were erected a mortgage ho given by the settlers to secure payment of the amount advanced, with interest at 7 per cent.

The plaintiffs proceeded to act upon the agreement. A site was procured for the settlors at Nihoniho, and a factory was erected there. In pursuance of the original agreement a mortgage was executed by the company to secure payment on Decembe • Ist, 1912, of the sum of £2500 advanced by Mills and Sparrow, and further advances by an instrument of the same date. A number of the settlers signed an agreement by which they alsa undertook to repay these moneys. Defendants, in the statement of defence which was first filed, admitted a mortgage and agieement of January, 1908, but denied that any money was due under the mortgage. In an amended statement of defence filed a few days ago they put in various new defences. Griffiths was cross-examined at great length, the case turning on whether he did not fail to supply the original agreement to enable the company to obtain signatures to the second guarantee, the contention being that as all had not signed the guarantee non© were liable. The case is proceeding.