Borough Council v. Meat Co.

Southland Times, Issue 19232, 19 December 1903, Page 4

Borough Council v. Meat Co.

THE JUDGMENT. At tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, Air S. R. McCarthy, S.M., gave judgment on the two informations laid by \v. Voting Clown Clem) against B (!. rhom'pson (manager Southland Meat Co.), one charging him with unlawfully selling, and the other with unlawfully exposing for sale certain meat contrary to Ltie provisions of secvion 17 of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, IVOO.— Mr T. M Macdonald for tho informant and Mr \V. A. Stout for the ck'fundant. '1 he case was heard on tho 1-Uh insi. and judgment was given an follows :— '■ There are throe q^iestio.ns for decision : (1) -Uo tho facts given in evidence constitute an agreenn-nt within the meaning of tho lirst pro.viso to section iJ7 ? ; (-2) assuming such an agreement, is the privilego oi .selling solely exercisuble by the 1- rozen Meat Co. V ; (3) Can the agreement once made be determined during the currency oi the Frozen Meat Company's license ? laKjng these questions in their order 1 a.tn oi the opinion that seeing the Borough Council were all along cognisant of the negotiations between Mr McQueen and Mr l.ong'Jet, and were informed by the latter of the ulu- | mate result, seeing further that it was aware of the rendering by the borough oHiciuls to tho Southland Meat Co., of which the defendant is manager, of the weekly accounts for fees from the 4th May, lttO3, to 2i)th October following and of the regular payment by the defendant of these accounts to the borough, :ind that the Council never made any objection until some months alter the tirst of these moneys had been received, there is an agreement by implication between the Frozen Meat Company and the Borough Council within the meaning of the first pro\iso to section 27. In thu second place I am of the opinion that the privilege of selling and exposing for sale the meat slaughtered by tho Frozen Meat Co. pursuant to the licenso is not alone exercisable by that company. That privilege is not confined to any particular district, but is exercisable throughout the colony. It must, therefore, be presumed that the Legislature intended that the work of selling should be performed by others than the company. To construe section 27 otherwise would be to restrain the company's right of sale as conferred by that section, and to justify such a construction the Legislature must have expressed its intention in clear and definite terms, which it has not done. The last point is the most ditlicutt, Tho second proviso to section 27. nowever, affords some light- the inference to be drawn from that proviso is in my opinion that onco an agreement has been entered into with any particular licenseo the latter is no longer at tho caprice of the local authority as to the lees to be charged. The amount of these lees can be made the subject of appeal to the Minister, who clearly has power to over-ride the agreement. Mow, ii wo assumo for the saico of argument, that the local authority may summarily dotorminc tho agreement even where, as here, a large expenditure of money has been made on the faith of its Laving been entered into, then, in the event oi an appeal to the Minister, it could, before decision had been made Known, exercise its right of determination, and thus render nugatory the last proviso to section '-17- But 1 am persuaded tho loca>l authority has no such power. The elTect of entering into the agreement as to fees is to bring into force in respect of tho license affected by the agreement the substantial part of section 27, under which the company is authorised to slaughter stock for human consumption throughout the colony, and this authority subsists as long as the license remains in force. This does not mean that the licensee and those selling under him have acquired a right in perpetuity. Thu license does not confer a right. i'Ut a mere privilege, renewable annually, and if the privilege which it confers is abused the local authority may refuse to exercise its power oi renewal, or a court of competent jurisdiction may cancel the license (soo section 05). This construction of 27 does not interfere with the restrictions placed by the act on the sale of meat unlit for human consumption, for the inspection at the Frozen Meat Uo 's works is just as complete as at the abattoir. There is nothing in the point that the fees agreed on had not been paid by the defendant. The latter ' tendered the fees to the proper borough official, who under instructions from the borough Council refused to accept them and made it clear that the refusal would be persisted in. In my opinion the facty adduced in evidence afford a ground of defence to tho matters alleged in the two informations, which are accordingly dismissed with costs. The costs were witnesses X.2 4-9, court Wa, solicitor's fee JC3 3s. No costs \vero allowed on the second information. Mr Macdonald asked his Worship to state a case for hearing in tho Supreme Court. liis learned friend had made a Huggestion to him before judgment was given, that us they could not both gain (.no case and one would probably appeal, that whoever lost would get till after the holiduys to give notice, up till the sith January. He now asked his Worship to fix that day as the limit in which an appeal could be lodged. His Worship agreed to do this. it