SALE OF BUSINESSES

Chronicle (Levin), 2 July 1947, Page 4

SALE OF BUSINESSES

Opposition From Returned Servicemen Opposition to the complete sale of two wood and coal merchants bUSinesses which incorpor'ated special authorities to carry other . goods, was put forward by the Rehabilitation Department when . the transfers came before the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority,. Mr. P. Skoglund, in Levin on Monday. ... , Protesting Ut the sale oi one such business in Otaki,. owned by J. W. Edwards, to John CroZifer Guy, the Rehabilitation Department (Mr. J. Cameronf, stated that it had a would be purchaser, William Thomas Major (Mr. C. F. Atmore), a returned serviceman from the recent world war, who desired to rehabilitate himself in such a business. unfortU'hately Major had not known of the sale before negotia.ions between Edwards and Guy had been completed, though the business had been advel'tised in distriot naners.

It was unfortunate, said Mr. Atmore, that there was not a cen-1 tral bureau where such businesses could be brought to the notice of returned men. If this was dcne, difficulties such as this would not arise. The manager of the firm, Arthur ♦ Edward Baker, stated that the firm had been granted authority to do certain carrying work within the borough When it Was not carrying coal. The firm had only the one truck, which was necessary for the running of the coal business. The cartying part bf the business represented only 80 per cent. of the ^ .irm's operations, and he claimed Aiere was no decent living for a returned serviceman in that part of the business alone, as the licence was operative in the borough only. The health of the manager made it imperative that jhe. owner dispose of the business. Questioned by Mr. Cameron, the purchaser denied that he had any intention of closing down the wood and coal business, and claimed thafc he wished to operate both services. "You are asking me whether an owner of a business should sell to a returned serviceihari," commented the authority in his summing up. "I have no jurisdiction over that. ■I cannot prevent an owner from selling to Whosoever he pleases/' The business was not available for 'ale without the truck. It would be "absolutely ridiculous" for him to ask the vendor to sell the truck to the Rehabilitalion Department's ipplicant, ahd buy a iiew biie fnr the coal business. He was quite eonvinced that with simpiy a borough licence the serviceman could not in any case make a reas•cnable living, he concluded, when granting the transfer of the licence .o Guy.

A Foxton Case The sale of a wood and coal business in Foxton, which incorporated an authority to run two vehicles for the carriage of goods was also opposed by the Rehabilitation Department (Mr. J. Cameron) on the grounds that it had a bona fide servicerhan, Mr. Leonai'd Charles Irons (Mr. N. M. Thomson) who was willing an& able to rehabilitate himself into such a business. It was stated in evidence that Irons was willing to •:ake over the transport autho^.ies, irrespective of the' wood and :oal. business. He was prepared if necessary to enter into an unconaitional agreement with the vendor if desired. -ppearing for both vendor and purchaser, Mr. M. B. Bergin stated that the business had already been pi'omised to Mt. Wi.lliarri; ' Douglas Satherley, who ;#s 'not -an': exserviceman. He had been "operating a farm in partnership with his brother, but when the latter had .eft to serve in the forces he had given up the farm and assisted his fathfer until the return of his brother. Farms were now difficult to secure and he was anxious to take over the business.' The carrying business was restricted to a sixmile radius within the borougn, and the two combined could only provide one marf with a reasonable .ivelihood. For the Rehabilitation Department, Mr. Cameron said that a review of the books revealed that a sre ry large amount could be made from the goods service alone, and the Rehabilitation Department had i man ready and willing to take it >ver. Cross-examined by Mr. Thomson, .he vendor, J. Proctor, admitted ffiat probably 40 per cent. of his ncome was derived from the goods service licences. The case was similar to the previous one in that he had no authorty tq force a person to sell his business other than to whom he iesired, said Mr. Skoglund. In this Case, however, there were two vehicle authorities. One vehicle would be required for the business and it was up to the servieemah :nd Rehabilitation Department to iecide Whether one licence in a restricted area would be of use fdr rehabilitation purposes. He was agreeable to the transfer of one bf Jie licences if they agreqd it was vorthwhile. Meanwhile, he would adjourn the case in order that the ;arties could corifer. The transfer of another goods licence, V. E. Morgan to E. W. Milqs (Mr. C. F. Atmore for both vendor and purchaser), was alloWed. The business had been offered to the Rehabilitation Department, said Mr. Cameron. The offer had been debline'd, not 6n the merits of •he business but because no suitable applicant was available.