DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

Waipa Post, Volume 31, Issue 1764, 29 May 1926, Page 5

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

■SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE ACT'S POWERS.

SEVERAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(By Telegraph. Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. Proceeding 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 of a portion of the industry. The Court reserved its decision as to whether it could properly deal with the application. The parties were the Dairy Proprietors' Association, Incorporated, and the Waitaki Dairy Company, Ltd., plaintiffs, and the defendants were the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control IBoard. Their Honours, "Mr C. P. .Skerrett. 'Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Reed were on the Bench. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr R. R. Kennedy, appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr A. W. Blair and Mr P. 8.Cooke appeared for the Dairy Control 'Board, and 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 the two classes of companies was conducted. Proprietary companies, he said, bought milk and cream supplies from the dairy farmers. The dairy farmer had no further interest then in the milk and cream produced. The proprietary company was then sole 'legal owner,

and could deal with the butter in any way it thought fit. The co-operative

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 the proprietary dairy company which manufactured the produce- The Board 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 proprietary dairy companies 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 very much 'like an examination paper," observed the Chief Justice.

Supporting his contention that the Court had propriety, counsel 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 that the Board would take absolute control of all dairy produce, Mr Justice Reed observed: "You say that if the first question is answered in the negative that 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 Findjlay proposed to bring before the 'Court. "We desire the Board, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Attorney-Gen-eral." replied counsel. Mr Skerrett: Why the AttorneyGeneral?

Mr Pair said he could not see how the general public .were interested, or the Minister of Agriculture. .Mr Justice Skerret v . observed that that-was his view also. "You are aware that the Court of Appeal sits on. 30th June," he added. "You would like the matter to be determined by then. That would enable you to appeal if the decision was adverse to you."

Mr Fair stated that the questions raised would be bound to extend to affect the banking interests, and probably the insurance 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. He also wanted to make it clear that the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, 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 Judgment Act. /Mr Blair said he thought it was common knowledge that the great majority of 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-ope-rative. The plaintiffs were proprietary. He contended that the greater number of producers were not represented at all. They_were the people who constituted the members of the co-operative dairy companies. He claimed there were two classes of producers, the pro-controllers and the anti-controllers. He would like to see his friend take steps to have somebody represent the cooperative procontrollers and anti-controllers. Then there was another class, which supplied, the milk to the proprietary company, meaning the farmer. Most farmers had no choice, but had to send their milk to the dairy in the neighbourhood. The two classes he had enumerated, and the exempted contract class, he contended, should be represented. So far as the Board was : concerned, he was prepared, to go on, but thev would like to see everybody interested to have a voice in the matter. The Court reserved its decision.