DAIRY CONTROL ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3768, 1 June 1926, Page 21

DAIRY CONTROL ACT.

POWERS OF BOARD

ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. WELLINGTON, May 27.

Proceedings of vital importance to dairy farmers were commenced in the Supreme Court to-day, when an application was made to the court for the determination of several questions dealing with the powers of the Dairy Control Board and the effect of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act on the business portion of the industry. The parties were the Dairy Pioprietors’ Association (Incorporated) and the Waitaki Dairy Company, Ltd. (plaintiffs), and the defendants were the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board.. His Honor Mr Justice Skerrett (Chief Justice) and Mr Justice Reed were on the Bench. Sir John Findlay, K.C. (with him Mr R. S. Kennedy), appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr A. W. Blair and Mr P. B. Cooke appeared for the Dairy Produce Control Board. Mr A. Fair represented the Solicitor-general. Eighteen lengthy questions were submitted to the court. , , . ! The position of the dairy companies was explained by Sir John Findlay, who drew attention to the manner in which the business of two classes of companies was conducted. The proprietary companies, he said, bought milk and cream supplies from the dairy farmers. The dairy farmers had no further interest than in the milk and cream produced, the proprietary company becoming the sole legal owner, and it could deal with the butter in any way it thought fit. A cooperative dairy company was quite different. In that case the owner was the milk supplier who handled and sold. The Control Board was not bound to follow any instructions from a proprietary company, but could act in defiance of a proprietary dairy company which manufactured produce. The hoard could sell the produce on whatever terms and conditions it thought fit. The matter for the court was the consideration of the propriety of dealing with the questions. The question at issue, as far as counsel was concerned, was whether the Act applied to a proprietary dairy company or not. Mr Justice Reed observed that the questions could be answered by an amendment .to the Act in the coming session. “It certainly sounds like an examination paper,” observed the Chief Justice. Supporting his contention that the court had propriety, Sir John Findlay submitted that each of the questions was a real question and was justified by the obscurity of the words of the Statute. Regarding the first question, which asked whether the effect of passing the resolution would mean taking absolute control of all dairy produce, Mr Justice Reed observed: “You say that if the first question is answered in the negative that the others do not arise?” Sir John Findlay: They do not arise as far as the proprietary dairy companies are concerned. Mr Justice Skerrett asked what parties Sir John Findlay proposed to bring before the court. “We desire the members of the board, the Minister of Agriculture, and the At-torney-general,” replied counsel. Mr Justice Skerrett: Why the Attor-uey-general? Mr Fair raid he could not see how the peneral public was interested or the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr Justice Skerrett observed that that was his view also. “You are aware that the Court of Appeal sits on June 29,” he said. 'You would like the matter to be determined by them. That would enable you to appeal if the decision were adverse to you.” Mr Fair stated that the questions raised would be bound to extend so as to effect

the banking interests and probably the li.surance companies. Mr Justice Skerrett: What do you say about the propriety of the court to determine these questions? Mr Fair said he had looked into the question from the point of authority, lie also wanted to make it clear that the Attorney-general, on behalf of the Govern ment, did not desire to obstruct or oppose. Counsel dealt at length with the questions, a number of which he classified as hypothetical, and quoted references dealing with applications under the Declaratory Judgments Act. Mr Blair said he thought it was common knowledge that a great majority of the producers apparently looked with favour on the operations of the Control Board.

Sir John Findlay questioned the statement.

Mr Blair: I am only going on the voting at the Town Hall recently. The greater number of dairy companies, Mr Blair proceeded, were co-operative, but plaintiffs were proprietary concerns. He contended that the greater number of the producers were not represented at all. and they were the people who constituted the mcnibers of the co-operative dairy companies. He claimed there were two classes of producers—pro-controllers and anti-con-trollers. He would like to see his friend take steps to have somebody represent the co-operative pro-controllers and the anti-controllers. Then there was another class which supplied milk to the proprietary companies—meaning the farmer. Mcrt farmers hat no choice but to send their milk to the dairy in the neighbourhood. Two classes he hao enumerated, but had exempted the contract class, which, he contended, should be represented. So far as the board was concerned, he was prepaied to p on, but they would like to see everybody interested have a voice in the mattei. The court reserved its decision on the question w'hether it properly could deal with the application.