SALE OF MEAT WORKS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LI, Issue 16719, 2 May 1925, Page 13

SALE OF MEAT WORKS.

SITTING OF COMMISSION

The sitting of the Royal Commission to enquire into the sale of the works of the Poverty Bay Farmers’ Meat Company to Vestey Bros, was continued this afternoon-, when further evidence was called bv Air W. I). Lysnar.

William Richmond, 'slreepfanner and meat exporter. of Gisborne, and Hawke's Bay, was the first witness. He stated that when lie put the stock through the works lie .received killing sheets in triplicate. He claimed the right to say who received the, killing sheets, and lie never allowed owners to see sheets of stock bought at ,per 11) or mi the hoof. In some cases the works were advised to send killing sheets to owners, but unless they got specific 'instructions they would not do so. In February, 1923, witness met Messrs Witters, Coop. Lysnar. and Carney, with the object of considering a proposal for Armours to advance money to the Poverty Bay Company and receive security over the works. Mr Carney said he would not consider any proposal without the Prime Minister’s consent to the arrangement for Armours to have all interest, in the company. Witness learned subsequently that Mr Carney had sent a. cable to his/principals and received a reply turning the whole proposal clown. At that time witness was in partnership with Armours, but for the past two years lie bad been operating independently. In a later interview with Mr .Lysnar and Mr Carney the latter was very much against the acquisition of the Povcrtv Ba.V works by Vesteys as it would interfere with the arrangements for the ensuing season. The letter written by Mr Carney to Mr Lysnar in September, 1923, was written in witness’s office, and was certainly not compiled by Mr Lysnar. The following month Air Carney and witness came to Gisborne and inet at Air Lysnar’s house and discussed the proposed sale. At the time tliA amount to be offered by Vesteys was known, and it, was.proposed lo ask Armours to advance a similar amount. This suggestion was turned down at the interview, and it was suggested that a joint offer might he made by iSims, Cooper and Co., Borthwick’s, Ltd., and Armours. This proposal, too, was eventually turned down. At no time had Mr Lysnar or any of ltis directors suggetsed a sale to Armours, and if Mr Campy said such an offer was made lie could not agree with him. The only suggestions were a mortgage and preference shares, the latter being for a small amount. Witness had found that the Poverty Bay works were well eondacted, and he had no occasion for complaint in any connection. He had killed a very large number of sheep at the works, and for the season after the works were first sold it- died been, estimated that the partnership would put through from 150,OK) to 200,000 sheep, according to the season. Witness had had several experiences of getting more for seconds than for first-grade meat. The winter and summer shipping rates which were in force some years ago were a big advantage to exporters, and assisted to spread the season, the proposal giving a reduction tin freights. This system helped to spread the killing .season, hut necessitated farmers preparing their stock for special periods. As a rule stock went to the works with a rush at certain, times of the year, but the congestion now was not so had as during the war period. Tl had never been witness’ principle to buy at per head, hnl at per lb, and he very seldom bought in aov other way. To Mr. Taylor the witness said the proposal to obtain assistance from Armours was that there should he an advance of £225,000 and take security over the works. Interest was never fixed because that aspect depended on Chicago. It was agreed also that Armours were to have been charged the lowest rates prevailing at the works. They were also to get a rebate which would place them on a better footing than shareholders, but this concession was one they could got from any other works. To Air. .Tones the witness said that two works were sufficient, for the district. A big turnover and good management* were essential to the success of freezing works. Quite !)0 per cent, of witness’ purchases would be at per lb., ami Iho balance would include stores purchased among fats. Ninety per cent, of Ihe store sheep he purl clmsed went on lo farms lie was interested in.

George David Lidgett, an engineer employed by the W a iron Freezing Company, stated that he had been employed at the Waipaoa works tor four years prior to the sale to \ cstcys. The machinery at the works was in excellent condition, and he had not had difficulty in .securing everything required (’or renewals and repairs except for the two months after Mosleys’ offer was Jirst made. One of (lie engines in the works had been damaged, but the necessary new part had already been ordered. Mr. Jolly’s statement that the works had been starved in order to shqw a profit was not correct us far as witness’ depart; ment was concerned. On the other hand a number of improvements had been effected, the tallow and manure departments being modernised. .Practically every department was brought up to' a basis of -1.000 sheep a day, the only section in regard to which there was any doubt being the wool department, which needed a larger building, and a larger drier, 1 To Mr. Taylor the witness said he bad not formerly been employed ia a freezing works, and had not continued at Waipaoa after Yes toys took over. It was possible that Yesteys would have to spend a certain amount on the works, but he would not agree Hint an expenditure of £20,000 was necessary. That amount could easily be spent, but It was probable that the works would run just as efficiently without the new work. At this stage (3.10 p.m.), the Commission adjourned until .10 on Monday morning.