TUCKER BOROUGH COUNCIL AND WANGANUI FREEZING COMPANY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12145, 1 September 1908, Page 8

TUCKER BOROUGH COUNCIL AND WANGANUI FREEZING COMPANY.

_ On resuming at 2 p.m. tho case cf Tucker Brothers, of Wariganui, butchers, y. the Mayor, CounSi.l-rs, and Burgesses of Wanganui, and the Wanganui Meat Freezing Conipanv, Xtd. Ibis was an action to compel the Bor- ?« g + ?^ n°l]^ restrai" frpni delegating to the Wanganui Mea;t Freezing Company, Ltd., the power of establishing and controlling abattoirs, under the Slaughtering; and Inspection Act, 1900 and to restrain the Fresziiig Company from so establishing and : controlling ?SSi rS u^fv^y agreement with the Comic and.that a mandamns bo issued compelling the Council to determine the delegation to the Company; already ef-

tiff? m hen. aPPeared for tlie plain- & I- Barlucoat for the defendant Corporation, and Mr Hutton for the t^S d5 n f' Cm^T y- .The case ™* S jomned,from-last session to tenable the Attorney-General to bejoined as a I fefnrff 1 M -^^onld :not consent

ill l +1" Ii m of claim ?^£ e J ,haV ]? r 4 eed dated !3rd March, 1M)2,-ihe .defendant Corporation did purport to delegate to the defendant meat Company the power of establishing; an abattoir for the Borouph of Wanganui under the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1900. On J6 th November, 1907, "a scale of charges in excess of that fixed on 16th, September, 1902, was approved of by the Governor. The defendant Company under such deed has since 1902 established and conducted an abattoir. In January, 1906, the defendant Company commenced business as retail butchers, opening *J ree, shops. The deed dated 3rd March, 1902. contains provisions which are ultra vires. The defendant ComP£ ny has nob carried out clauses 14 and 15 of the deed. The abattoir established by the said Company is not an abattoir within the meaning of the ActBy reason of the fact that defendant Company has become an active competitor ui-the retail trade of butchers with the plaintiffs and have the sole control or the killing of the meat of the plain- . tilts the defendant Company is not a nt person within the meaning of the Slaughtering and Inspection "Act, 1900, to have such delegation made to it, or to be the controlling authority under the above Act of an abattoir. The plaintiffs pray that the defendant Corporation bo restrained from (1) delegating to the defendant Company the power to establish an abattoir for the Borough of Wanganui in lieu of tho defendant Corporation itself. (2) Delegating to the defendant Company the carrying on of any abattoir or "abattoirs. (3) That the defendant Corporation be restrained from taking advantage of the deed dated 3rd' March, 1902, and from granting any powers,

rights, and privileges or in anywise acting under the said deed. (4) That i the defendant Company be restrained i from acting under the said deed in any : way in connection with abattoirs, and from taking advantage of any powers, : rights and privileges contained in the said'deed. • (5) That the deed of 3rd March/ 1902, be delivered up to the Court for cancellation. (6) Such further and other relief as to the Court shall seem just. The statement of defence filed by the Borough .Council, states, inter alia, that in pursuance of the provisions of sections 5 and 15 of the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1900, the Council did by deed of 3rd March, 1902, with the approval of tho Minister for Agriculture, delegate to the Wanganui Meat Freezing Company. power to establish an abattoir in Wanganui. The said Company proceeded to establish an abattoir and on completion thereof the secretary of Agriculture on 31st July, 1902, did register the said Company as the controlling body 'thereof. The defendant denies that any of the r>rovisions of the said deed are ultra vires. The eaid defendant Company has duly performed all the provisions of clauses 14 and 15 of the said deed. The defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of the -statement"''of claim and says that the defendant Company has always been a fit person to be a delegate of the duty of establishing and controlling an abattoir. The defendant denies that plaintiffs have any right to bring this action, and says that such action can only be brought by the Attorney-Gen-eral The statement of defence filed by the Wanganui Meat Freezing Company. Ltd.. is to the same effect as that filed by the defendant Corporation. The plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim -to the following effect: They repeat the allegations in the. statement of claim and say that the defendant Company is riot a fit person, within the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1900, for the further reasons (1) It has not killed the plaintiff's meat in a proper manner; (2) it carries on a large [ business as slaughtermen of meat for export at. the same abattoirs as the [ meat of the plaintiffs is killed; (3) ProV vision _ for the proper killing of the plaintiff's beasts has not been made at the abattoirs of the defendant Company. The plaintiffs repeat the prayer ", in the original statement of claim with tho addition of a further paragraph t that a mandamus issue to the.said defendant _ Corporation compelling it to f , give notice determining the delegation I effected by the deed of 3rd March, I' 1902.

The defendant Company filed an amended statement of defence, denying that it has not carried out the work of killing plaintiffs' meat in a proper manner,, admitting that it carries on a business in slaughtering; meat for-export partly in the r a .tjiW abattoir as.plaintiffs' meat in. but says that such buFinefs is crried on separatel- from the. killing for the abattoir and at different times, and denying that provision for the proper killing of plaintiffs' boasts lias not been made. \ Mr Cohea. for plaintiff, svd that the Attorney-General hadnot b^en joined. Counsel stated that he d'd not desire •..the ■ Attorney-General to be joined as ho would contend:." that ihe - nlaintiffs .themselves had suffered ''nj'nrv arid not the gerefal miblic. He -would not argue, that clauses o? tVe deed' referred to wero ultra vires and was prepared to proceed as if no .—--Mieation had been made. His Honour agreed to take the statement of claim as amended accordingly. He read correspondence between the Council and the butchers as to the dissatisfaction in connection with the abattoirs and called . William Tucker, of Wanganui, butcher, one of the plaintiffs, Been in business here 15 years ago. Remembered the establishment ofan abattoir by, defendant: Company in 1902. 'Before, that the, Company; killed at Castlecliff for the butchers. From 1902.the Freezing Companyhad not killed the meat properly and well. It was never even, bled, »hd there was bad workmanshipin shrhtering. Witness had complain-" ■'-1 J ■■■• Mr Cresswell, Mr Marsden, and,, V- Q y me. Government Inspector, about1 ' ■•filth v, bruised state of his meat.. It was also badly dressed. Was referrin pc to beef only. He showed Mr Cress^. well beef and mutton and he said lie would see to-it. Made the same com-' plaint to Mr Mar.sden at ihe workW who admitted things were not as they, should be. Mr MaTsden had more thanhe could look :after. He had to supervise all the killing. Witness drew the?5 attention of Inspector to five bodies! o£ his beef being disgracefully dressed. The Inspector said the meat was in a bad state but- it had nothing to do' with him. Witness had. taken the* Insiipctor to: his shop to spe the bad" stato the mutton was in. He had seen tho men at work killing. All the beef was killed in the same killing pens. He had doubts whether h>-had received his own meat from the Company. They i were very lax. Had taken cattle to | +he yards, and sometimes someone was there,'sometimes not. No receipt .was fnven, but a message was sent or given •if: to cattle., etc., put in the yards inanv ...pen. Had been there when the yards were in a congested state. - To His Honour: Witness used tVe same, yards, pons, etc.. as export people. 1 o Mr Cohen: Had put cattle in when freezing bullocks were there, and hv* f-attle had stood all night and day. i nnile the export cattle arid sheep had .n?cn killed. Have put cattle in a pen at night and found other cattle with nin. fim in tne moi' ning in the same pen. ,lhe greatest art in slaughtering cattle is to keep them quiet before sla"u.o-hter-mg with careful handling. If a"beast were heated it would not bleed well, tho flesh would como out dark and would not keep when pickled. It was an essential feature of butchers to have good corned beef. Had found his cattle m different pens from what he had put them in. The pens were not numbered. Since 1906, when the Company started retail business, their meat looked much better in their shops than in otlipr shops. Inexperienced persons could see the difference. Witness considered he had been placed at a disadvantage. . It was unfair competition. If it was fair would have nothing to say. Witness had seen killing done at Aramoho during alterations at Castlefliff. His own firm's meat was Killed there :by the Company. Everything was better done there. He attributed it to the fact that there was not so much stock there, and that there were good slaughtermen. Witness bought as good meat as the Freezing Company. Was a competitor in the market with them. Objected to the Company killing at the abattoirs and running" retail business too. The Company got to know all his business and could take advantage of him. Since January his stock had. been killed at Castlecliff again. The beef had improved, but sometimes the mutton was"disgraceful. When tho Company notified butchers they were going to raise price of killing, the butchers protested to the Council. He thought the suggestion of appointment of an inspector by the Council absurd. Considered an abattoir would cost £4000 or £5000—an up-to-date one. Such an abattoir would be self supporting. By-products Mere of considerable value. Witness said there would be no difficulty to dispose of refuse, etc., if a public abattoir. The butchers would dispose of that themselves. To His Honour: Dannevirke had a public abattoir which did not cost £4000 or_ £5000. Nelson had one costing £7500 with land. Hawera also had one about three miles from town.

To Mr Cohen : The whole of the refuse could be disposed of for considerable value, witness would take the refuse from his own beasts if possible. Reckoned refuse from cattle worth 10s per beast, from sheep Is each.

To Mr Hutton: Had complained about the fat to Mr Stone, and the Council. Mr Creswell is the secretary of the Freezing Company. Witness could not say whether Mr Creswell was manager of the abattoir. Could get £1 per 100 for horns here, 4 to 9d for glue pieces, 5s each for bullock's heads, prices for the four feet; tail tips (worth l^d). Witness had had trouble with cattle on the roads to the abattoir, and in that case would expect meat to be bruised or damaged. He had delivered more than one day's killing at a time. His cattle had been left in the yard for a day bs r his own instructions. Meat comes from slaughterhouse in a cart, riot a coverert-in waggon. It sometimes camo by railway truck. Did" not think carting affected the meat which could not be bruised when dead. Had continually told Mr Creswell about sheep manure continually on the mutton. Since 1902 had only complained to Council verbally, not written"to it. Had nover asked for receipts for his cattle. Witness had never complained that he had riot got his" own beasts back, as he could not prove it after the hide was off; Had driven his cattle into the yard with another persons and then divided them in the yard. , They were not specially marked. Cattle had to be there before 8 a.m. on the day on which they would be killed: There were some good slaughtermen at the abattoir. Mr Cresswell had attended nieetings of butchers since the Company had started retail shops. .He had-been elected chair-

man. The Company had not been in conflict with the butchers it paid it in two ways not to be. Witness had experience in an English slaughterhouse. Had not been in a public abattoir. Was a party to original agreehient whereby Company slaughtered for the butchers in 1896. Witness was compelled to sign the agreement, but always objected to the Company slaughtering. To Mr Barnicoat: Had no desire to

see the Meat Company close their- re-. tail shops. Could not say that any of the butchers here had been in an .abattoir at all. There have not been so many objections since May to the killing All the butchers' objections are not capable, of being remedied,, the butchery, and public want abattoirs. Never complained to the Council since 1902, because butchers thought the Council had delegated its powers. Honestly' thought the Company differentiated between their own meat and, the butchers'. Could not say why, but it was true. Since 1903 when it opened shops the Company had killed quietly ■■their, own meat at Aranioho. *• : r To His Honour: All the mutton is killed now at Castlecliff. The Company's mutton was better than the but-" chers' now. Could not explain it. To Mr Barnicoat: Castlecliff surroundings were bad for an abattoir— the building, etc., was clean. Tlieie was too- much stock and too many dogs about. Mr Mitchell was secretary to the butchers in Wanganui. The'butchers waited on the Council arid th en put their views in writing. They de- ! clined to discuss matters with the'Comr pany at all, when invited to do so. The butchers declined to allow the Company to haye the butchers' correspondence, but wanted same published. ,-They did not want arbitration; they wanted abattoirs. The Council sent '^i Councillor to New Plymouth who raw a butcher there about abattoirs. Did rot know what contractors for refuse paid for it. When withes^ was slaughtering at Okoia the Meat Company paid him £48 for two years' accumulations of bones. He was willing to remove all refuse of any kind and clean abattoir and other butcher's would do the same. The Council would ;have to h^ve rulesand regulations. The butclierff got nothing now from: th> refuse. ;^..:.; 7^ToMr Cohen : Witness could- not -say whether slaughtermen knew ; whether - cattle or sheep were for export or not. When they were killed the kidiieys '.J'??& taken oufcof; the export and. not '.oiirk of the abattoir mea^. No proper system was carriad out, and there was ali&MUjtS:' of mistake."' ;v- ~ .-;•■.- The Coiirt 'adjourned at 5 .piira. until 10 ; jt^m.-on Tuesday. :., :