WYNDHAM DAIRY FACTORY.

Otago Witness, Issue 4041, 25 August 1931, Page 49

WYNDHAM DAIRY FACTORY.

An extraordinary general meeting of the company was held recently, when there was a large atendance of shareholders, Mr F. J. Lehany (chairman of directors) presiding. The secretary (Mr A. A. Wilson, jun.), read the notice caUing the meeting, allowing the object to be to amend the articles of association by the addition of this article:—“That al] new suppliers to the factory, from farms not at present or during the last 10 years supplying the factory, be required to hold six shares in the capital of the company for each dairy cow for time being owned by such new supplier; and that no milk be supplied to the factory by sueh new supplier until ne has qualified as aforesaid.”

The chairman said that such a position had never before arisen. Smail factories had a difficulty in holding suppliers, who were apt to go to a central factory where difference in pay-out might be Ad—not much when butter-fat was at 2s 6d per lb, but counting more when the price was low, as at present. The motor lorrv overcame distance, so that a mile or two did not count in conveying milk to factory. There had been quite a number of inquiries from prospective suppliers. At, present the qualification of a supplier was one share up to 45 cows. There would be no difficulty in buying shares; and the company would be compelled to accept a man’s supply if he had one share. The factory could not take much more milk. It had already worked at capacity It would involve building, which the directors did not contemplate. They now had a reserve of £B2B, which this year would increase to £9OO. They would need co have 25 per cent, of the cost, of a new building, estimated at £lO,OOO. The expenses under the loan (including interest) would equal Jd per lb butter-fat. To embark on a building scheme would be folly at present, with no benefit to the company, while it- would have the eventual result of closing the smaller, factories. The general effect of accepting more suppliers would force on the building scheme. To safeguard the position the proposal had been brought forward to increase the shareholding proportion of any new supplier. It would be noted that under the proposal the farmers were protected, for any which had supplied milk within 10 years would be exempt from the new proposal, and could come again. If the supply had ceased for more than 10 years it was presumed to have gone for good. The directors had discussed the position with their legal adviser, and the proposal was- the best they could arrive at. They 7 did not want to go into expense meantime, and he would not recommend building until half the estimated cost was in hand

in cash. The alternative to the motion was « • e nlove d the motion, which Mr K. Al. Davis seconded. x The motion was discussed from various angles by shareholders, and numerous questions replied to by the chairman. Hinally the motion was put and carried with only one voice dissenting.