MILK SUPPLIERS DISPUTE

Te Aroha News, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5499, 13 June 1917, Page 2

MILK SUPPLIERS DISPUTE

NANAWARU QUARREL VENTILATED IN COURT The facts arising out of a dispute recently at the New Zealand Dairy Association’s factory at Manawaru were voutilatedat the Te Aroha S.M. Court ou Tuesday," before Mr E. Page, when Henry Gray (represented by Mr James) proceeded against the factory manager (A. tout) aucl three brothers, James, Frederick, aud Edward Ward (represented by Mr J. C. Carroll), for alleged assault aud trespass ou chat. : lols.

Mr James said plaintiff was a farmer at Mauawaru, and supplies milk to the Now Zealand Dairy Association's factory there. There appeared to have been a dispute over the amount of whey returned to suppliers. There may have been a haphazard method of doling it out. Plaint ■IT had received short supply on occasions, and ou April 15th he drew tho manager’s attention to the shortage. The manager had then abruptly informed him that ho would not got any more wlioy. Plaintiff claimed his fair share aud suggested that weighing would be the fairest method. Defendant Ward had then hacked his own milk cart on to plaintiff's cart, knocking it away from the receiving station. Then thj two Wards deliberately turned tho whey iu tbo tank into the gutter. About SOOIbs of whey was thus wasted. Since then othor disputes had arisen, and there was no doubt a good deal of feeling existed. Plaintiff was only claimiug moderate damages, and desired to assert bis rights.

Mr Carroll asked to be informed of the definite charge or charges against defendants. He wanted to know whether all defendants could be present iu Court during the hearing. This being granted, Mr James called plaintiff Henry Gray, who said lie was a member of tho management committee appointed to assist in the conduct of the factory. He had acted iu that capacity for about a year. Uu tho Sunday uioruiug referred to lie went to the factory between S aud 9 o'clock, delivered Ids milk in the usual manner and proceeded to the wlicy receiving stand. The whey from the tank was supposed to be weighed out to each supplier. The scales had never weighed correctly. The manager oontrul’cd the supply of whey to each supplier. Could not tell how the manager anived at the correct amouut. Hu hoard suppliers call to tho maunger that they had uot got sufficient whey, and lie allowed them more. (Jn the morning iu question plaintiff asked the malinger for his full share. Tho day previous lie had not received any whey at all. Asked the manager to look iu his cans. The manager said : “ Tou have got all you arc goiug to get, so pull out.” Claimed he was entitled to his fair slime, especially as lie had uot received any at all the previous day. The manager said if plaiutitl: did uot pull out ho would put him out. Someone suggested weighing as the fairest method. Tho Wards were taking part iu the dispute. Did uot know why. Agreed to the suggestion re weighing. Tout, W. Osborne aud the three Wards went round to get

rhe scales. Heard Osboruo say ■‘Don't got the scales, Wo aro not goiug to allow one man to beat as. We’ll shift him out of it.” Tout returued and said plaintiff would have to get out, and he pulled the horse’s head. Plaiutilf told Tout to leave the horse alone, as ho would only be causing trouble. Tout insisted, and , defendant jumped out of the cart aud grubbed his horse's head. Edward Ward then called out “ Come on, boys, we will shift him out of it.” The three Wards and Tout thou tried to run the cart out of tho way. They failed, so Tout advised Edward Ward to take his cart behind plaiutilf and bash him out of it. This was done, the impact smashing the tailboard and breeching. Plaintiff brought his vehicle back again. Wards then desisted. James Ward then climbed into plaintiff's cart, aud tilled Fred Ward’s caus. Heard one of the Wards say, If I'd had my other horse I would have pushed him right out iuto tho other paddock. James Ward tlieu called.Mr Kells, another supplier, who was waiting to get his whey, aud lil'ed Kells' cans with whey. Kells drove away thou. Tout thou toll Edward Ward to go ami ring for the police. Edward returned in a few miuutes saying the police wore coining out to shift plaiutilf. Plaiutill 1 war left alone for awhile, the defendants conferring behind tho factory. Tlieu Tout caught the horse's head, saying lie had permission from the police, aud remained. One of tho Wards advised Tout to bring out his staff of three meu to shift him. This was done, but plaiutilf warned them against interfering. Two of tho staff returned indoors, the third sayiug ho would do as the manager told him, but soon wout indoors. Tout was moautimo trying to uuharuoss tho horse but failed The defeudauts then conferred again. Fred and Ted Ward climbed on to the whey tank. Otlior supplies thou got their wlioy from tho other lap. Some wont home, a few remained. Then Tod Ward turned the remaining whey iuto tho gutter leading to tho creek. About 4- to 5 caus of whey was thus wasted. Plaintiff had taken 339 lbs. o' milk to tbe factory that morning. Was therefoL’o entitled to about 2501bs of wlicy. Only got 20011)3. of whey. After lettiug the wlioy into tho gutter, James Ward and Osborne wout borne Ted aud Fred soon followed. Considered the Wanls had received au extra supply of whoy ou occasions. On the 16th Fred Ward had received what tho manager supplied aud thou ea’led for moro. The manager gave them moro than would go iu tho cans. Considered Tout had shown favoritism iu the-supply of whey. Knew some of tho suppliers did not take away thoir full quota. Otliors could qyt get thoir fair share. About 15 to 20 owt. of whey was frequently loft. Since April 17tli had been short of whey ou occasious. Tout told him ou tho 16th he (plaintiff) was fortunate in uot being put iuto the crook tho day previous, as there were plenty of men there capable of doing it. Estimated the damage to trap aud harness at £3. I

To Mr Carroll—Left the factory that morning about 11 o’clock. He was the last supplier to leave. Had partly filled two cans with whey when the disputp arose Way entitled to wait at the whey tank uutil he received his full amount of whey. The manager was to he the judge as to (he correct amount, Believod defendant Tout was the manager in control. Expected Tout to weigh the amount in oise of a dispute. He toll Osborne during the dispute to mind his own business, because Osborne had been interfering aud attempting to take charge. Was positive Stafford bad not taken hold of plaintiff’s cart to remove it. Osborne did not try to

move his carl. Three suppliers— Stafford and the two Wards—were waiting to get their whey, and four other's were in the yard. Ou the day previous to the incident did not get any whey, and did not remember anyone offering him a can of whey. That morning Ted Ward was the only supplier after him to receive whey. Douied that the manager asked him on the 15th to wait, saying if there was any whey over he could have it. After the dispute Kells got his whoy. Was positive Ted Ward went to the factory on tho two mornings following the dispute. Tho Association’s rules provided that all whey must be carted away from the factory. Had received excess whey on previous occasions alter all suppliers had gone. To Mr James—Any supplier could obtaiu the excess whjy. Had been told some weeks previously by a supplier' that some suppliers considered the manager was favoring plaintiff. Pointed out to his informant that any supplier could receive tho whey loft behind by any other suppliers. Tho S.M. asked plaintiff if he had previously had trouble at the factory? —No.

Continuing, plaiutiff said he did not kuow what was required of the local committee. They had not the power of directors. The whey could have been weighed alongside his vehicle by moans of scales brought from the cheose room. The secoud whey tap hid been used ou occisious earlier in the season. Hid not moved his cart to allow of the whey being woighod, as it was not necessary and he did not think of it. The mechanical register tor doliug out whey was out of order and could not be relied upou. Was merely guessing wheuhe estimated he only had 2001bs of whey ou tho 16th, bat could estimate within a few pounds. William Kells, ou affirmation, said] he was present on the 16th of May at the factory. His evidence was a general corroboration of the earlier evidence, The manager told him to tako his cart alongside Gray’s, and he received his whey there. His horse was fidgety, aud he did not hear the of tho dispute. He knew the whoy was doled out unequally, aud blamed the maohino for that. The supply was usually cut off by the manager, but had heard some suppliers say they had not got their share, aud then the manager gave complainants more whey. Did not kuow plaintiff was unpopular in the district. Plaintiff was a good supplier.

To Mr Carroll ; Did not see Gray push his earl back under the tap. Both Gray's and Ward’s carts were almost under the tap at the same time. Jim aud Fred Ward gave witness his whoy that morning. The second whey tao had bueu used at times during the season, hut not regularly. Witness had boon given short supply of whey at limes The whey doled out each morning was from the previous morning's supply of milk Had not had words with auy supplier since about the incident.

To the S.M. : Somo of tho suppliers that running were de'ayed some time owing to tho dispute. This olosod the case for the plaintiff.

Mr Carroll said there was a principle at stake, as to what discipline was to bo exercised at the factory, Plaiutitf had abrogatec to himself the right to hold up the conduct of the factory while he argued with the manager over the amouut of whey he sliouli have received. Kells, in his evidence, had shown that Gray was basing his claim a a wrong impression. The manager at the outset had eudoavoured in a peaceful manner to persuade Gray to pull out from the tap and wait uutil his supply was weighed out. Plaintiff had been obstinate, aud that was the cause of the disturbance. Practically all the suppliers that morning had backed up the manager in asserciug his authority. Osborne and Stafford bad endeavoured to peaceably interfere but Gray abused them. Plaintiff had bashed his cart into Ward’s cart, if any damage wis sustained Gray was the cause of it. Only a very small amount of whey was wasted, aud that was unavoidable. The manager was taking more care iu observing that each supplier received his fair share, and Gray was the first to call out iu protest. Plaintiff had no right to hold up the working of the factory, and the suggestion of undue favoritism was quite unjustified. The mauagor was practically a newcomer to tho district and it was extromoly improbable that any favoritism had been displayed. Moreover, Gray was in effect, a trespasser on the property of tho N.Z.D.A., and was acting quite outside his rights in holding up the business of the factory. Albort R. Tout, manager of the N.Z.D.A. factory at Manawaru, gave his version of the affair. On the morning of the 15th he had set the machine to give Gray about 4001 b of whey; that beiug his actual share (2381 b) and the extra being to make up for the short supply given him the day before. Ho rockoned at times Gray was receiving about 8001 b of whey when he was actually only entitled to about 3001 b. While Gray was backing hie cart in to get whey, defendant was informed a bad leak had occurred iu the boiler. Adjusted the trouble, and was returning to the weighing stand when Gray told him ho was uot getting enough whey. Looked iu Gray’s caus aud said ho was only entitled to 2501 b to 2601 b. Gray insisted on receiving enough to make up for the two days’ supply. Asked Giay to wait till afterwards aud he could have any whey left over. Plaintiff declined, and also refused to back his cart against a platform where the scales were. Tiiel to persuade him, but failed. G''ay was adamant. Thou some suppliers gradually worked his cart away to enable them to get their own whey. Sent for tho police as there seemed to be Finally the secoud tap was utilised to enable the remaining suppliers to get their whey. Was positive he did uot assault Gray. Tried to coax him to a reasonable frame of mind. Had tried to unharness Gray’s horse so as to shift tho cart from under the whey tap. There was no punching, but it was push and push," each trying to shove tho other aside. The morning previous to the affair ho asked Gray to take less whey as he was only entitled to from 2001 b fo 3001 b. Gray said he had authority to take Mr Brown's whey, but next day Mr Brown’s man denied that Gray had that permission, adding that they needed all their

whey. To Mr Jamea—Not more than a Jew gallons of whey was let run to waste through the wrong chain being palled accidently, Gray had about 4001 b of whey that morning. Each qan would hold about 2401 b, and they were nearly full. The froth was right to the top. Gray had five cans in his cart. It was his custom to fill four cans with ,whey and the other one with hot water. Believed that had been Gray’s practice practically ever since he .(Tout) took charge at the factory. Would not deny that the whey allowed t> run to waste was done to prevent Gray getting any

that morning. Tod Ward was trying to bale out whey from one weighing machine to the other. It was impossible to bale out all of it, but only about a gallon or so remained. This was what ran to waste. Had received complaints against Gray previously. The Saturday morning was the first occasion that he knew Gray received short supply. The machines for weighing whey had since been fixed, and were giving satisfaction. There had not been a regular system previously, Some of the suppliers do not take their full quota, and when that is the case the supplier calls out or whistles, and ho (Tout) would then shut off the supply. Was positive he asked Gray to come back afterwards aud he could have any whey left in the tanks. Did not know there was any ill-feeling towards Gray by other suppliers, though one supplier had asked how it was he could hardly get his fair supply when Gray could get four full cans. When the dispute was on, heard someone say Gray should be put in the creek for delaying the other suppliers. The suppliers apparently thought he (Tout) had not been firm enough .towards Gray. When speaking to Gray, had spoken quietly, and did not attempt' to bounce him. Had not actually communicated with the police, but had been advised by an ex-policeman. Gould not say who backed Ward’s cart into Gray’s cart, but the obvious intention was to push Gray’s cart oat of the way. The tailboard of Gray’s cart was brokeu wlieu Gray backed his cart into Ward’s cart in l etaliation. Ward’s cart was wedged against the stand then. Heard the board splintering. Did no damage to Gray's harness.

To the S.M.: He was an employee of the N.Z D.A. The local committee did not control his actions. He knew of no printed rules guiding him in his conduct towards suppliers. George Cooper, a supplier at the factory, detailed his version of the incident, in the main bearing out Tout's evidence. He heard Gray threaten violonce towards Osborne. Heard Gray complain of not getting sufficient whey, so offered him a can of his own. Gray declined the offer. Considered any damage to, Gray’s trap would bo amply covered for £2. Witness had received short supply of whey at times. As a rule Gray had no cause for complaint in that respect. The amount of whey spilled over Gray’s cart would not be more than two gallons. To Mr James—Did not know a fight was imminent and was not a keen spectator. Did not deny telling Gray nest day that one of the Wards had expressed a wish for a bigger horse, as then they would have “ bashed ’’ Gray into the next paddock. Knew the tailboard of Gray's cart was cracked previous to the day of the argumout. To Mr Carroll—Took no part in the dispute. To the S.M.—The quarrel delayed eight or nine suppliers who were waiting for their whey. Archibald Carmichael, another supplier, also gave evideuee in support. " Re the alleged assault, witness said, Tout put his hand on Gray’s shoulder. Gray immediately claimed that that was au assault and if he (Gray) struck Tout it would be in selfdefence. Tout apologised, and again laid his hand on Gray’s shoulder. Gray said that was another assault, and if he struck Tout it would agaia be iu self-defence. Tout again apologised. Witness spoke of Tout as the fairest manager yet at Manawaru, and all the suppliers except may be two or thrpe would be sorry to lose him. Did not take auy part in “ the fun was a spectator. Believed. Gray had two full cans of whey.. Was positive Gray declined to go* round to the platform and ljave his whey weighed. Wi'liam Osborne, also a supplier, detailed his version, which was ora much the same lines as that of previous witnesses When Gray abused! wituess for interfering, wituess ftmted Gray to get out of the cart and try to carry out his threats. Gray got out r but Stafford and Tout counselled* peace, as it was Sunday morning:. - Had never seen the second tap used! prior to that day. Witness denied the statement credited to him re nob troubling to weigh Gray’s whey, bub to jbump him out of the way. Mr James'said an assault and trespass to chattels had been provedl, ots the admission of the other- side*. Was there justification for- dtefeudWff action ? He did not think so. Maybe defendants had no legal right to deliberately undo the harness of Gray’s horse, or to bump his cart, causing damage. If they had a complaint they had no rignt to take the: law into their own hands. Gray was-, on the property as a shareholder in; the compauy. The manager had noti made the best use of his discretionary powers as manager iu avoiding a> conflict. Osborne, despite his complaisance iu the witness box, was in< an excited state at the faotoiy. Gray was not wilfully committing perjury when he swore he did not, decline to> have hie whey weighed onit. Some* of the defendants had taken drastic; action, without justification. There: was an excess of force, and therefore defendants were legally liable.

Nathanial Stafford, who was also-, present, could not throw auy frashh light on the incident, except that 3*' heard Gray on several occasions call Tout and Osborne liars. Witness assisted to put the scalea on tbe platform to weigh Gray’s whey, but Gray; declined to adopt that method. At this point, the- S.M. intiiuated-1 that he would not require any further;* evidence.

The S.M. said the defendant mustsecure the verdict. Pbuntift- had not accepted the allowance of Srhey doled out by the factory nWager. Plaintiff had no right to, hold up the work . of the factory staff and other suppliers. He had declined the offer to • have his whey weighed, aud simply * blocked; the whole of the traffic. . Plaintiff had acted unlawfully, and l Mr Tout was justified in using some force to prevent Mr Gray, holding up * the factory working. The other de- • fendants were within their rights in'assisting the manager. If Gray's; oart was damaged, he had been the-* canse of it. Plaintiff had no right tt» y demand more whey. The judgment C would be for defendants, with costs according to scale. Costs totalled, witnesses £8 10s 6d; Court costs 14s; counsel’s fee, £L Is.