THE MILK CASES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11255, 6 July 1922, Page 12

THE MILK CASES

COUNCIL LOSES APPEAL THE VENDORS' ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMS UPHELD. APPEAL COURT DECISION. Tn the Appeal Court yesterday, before Their Honours tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Mr Justice Hosking, Mr Justice Henlman, and Mr Jiistioo Salmond, wad concluded the appeal of tho Wellington Oity Council against tho judgment of Mr Justice lteed, delivered on May 30th, 1921, in favour of the Wellington Milk Vendors’ Association, Ltd. (No. 3 Company)- ilr A. Gray, K. 0., Mr H. Buddie, and Mr L. C. Hemery appeared for the appellant corporation, and Mr M. Myers and Mr O. C. Mazengarb for the respondent company. The decision of Sir Justice Reed awarded the respondents £BBO damages for a breaoh of agreement on the part of the appellants (defendants in the lower court) in respect of a supply of milk during the winter months of 1920. The actual sum claimed in that action by the association against the council was £1299 los 3d, or a sum based upon an adjustment by accounting of the losses sustained by the association through short supply.

CHIEF JUSTICE’S DECISION. After hearing counsel’s argument for the corporation, His Honour, the Chief Justice, said he did not consider ' it necessary to call upon the company for an answer to the council’s pleas, The agreement, he said, contained a clause relieving the respondent of ' liability, any condition such as disease, drought or accident making the completion of tho conditions of the agreement impossible. His Honour held, however, that none of those conditions existed to relieve the corporation of responsibility, and their only excuse was that the farmers and dairies could not he induced to supply enough milk for the winter. When the Featherston company offered supplies at Is 6d the council refused to pay over Is sd, and therefore supplies could have been obtained only they would not pay enough. In His Honour’s opinion the council invited blame for not having arranged far enough ahead for their necessary winter supplies, for the shortage did not occur until a year after the making of the agreement in June, 1919. As late as January, 1920, the council was still issuing letters, circulars and telegrams to farmers instead of making definite contracts. His Honour considered tho appeal should be dismissed, and that the application for a reduction of the damages awarded by the lower court should be refused. MR JUSTICE HOSKING.

In supporting the above judgment, His Honour Mr Justice Hoeking said that the refusal by the council to pay the price asked for milk supplies was not sufficient to relieve it from liability under the agreements. He considered the council’s methods of going about the arrangements for getting supplies to be unbusinesslike. MR JUSTICE HERD MAN. With these opinions His Honour Mr Justioe Herdman fully concurred, and he expressed the opinion that had, the council gone about the affair in a proper mannei there need have been no shortage of milk. MR JUSTICE SALMOND. Mr Justice Salmond agreed with this statement, and was of opinion that the council’s .plea of necessary apportionment of its supplies amongst all vendors holding similar and concurrent agreements was a plea bad in Jaw, though the practice itself might not be wrong. If, said His Honour, a man had one horse which he had agreed to sell to two men separately, he must hand over the horse to one man and the money to the other, for expressions of regret would not adequately satisfy a disappointed buyer.