FACTORIES AND SUPPLIERS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 154, 25 March 1919, Page 10

FACTORIES AND SUPPLIERS

— AN'INTERESTING ' JUDGMENT. (By Telegraph—Speclnl' Oorrespondeht.i ;':"':.'.'-'•■: ..Palmerston N., March 24. .' .A case of general interest to factories nnd suppliers was the subject of the reserved judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman filed with the Kegistrar of the Supreme . Court at Palmerston thle aftornoon. The decision affected a "civil, action heard at ' the 'last .sitting' of,.the, Supremo Court, in which Gore Bros.; farmers, sued the Newbury Dairy Company for ,£l7B 9s. for butter-fat "supplied. The defence ■con"tended that under the.articles of association of the company the plaintiffs were bound to, supply the factory with the ' whole of their season's milk. This they had failed to! do. .■•■...-. .'At tho hearing evidence % was given on behalf of the plaintiffs that they had discontinued their supply because on one occasion the company had found fault with 'the .quality of their .milk, and refused to ficceiJt' it.' Thereafter they had separated'their, own taken tho cream to one of Nathan'and Co.'s factories. For the defence evidence was given that plaintiffs had not supplied tho wliolo of their season's milk, and consequently had been fined .£9O, at the rate of •■£) per,cow. The balance of the plaintiffs' claim had been paid into court, ... In'.the course of his jtttignientHis Honour'said it had been agreed that fhe .articles did not bind a supplier of milk merely because he was a shareholder. It was evident, liowevor, that tho constitution of the company only contemplated men: becoming: shareholders beCriuso of the advantages thereby given to them ns- shareholders in .'connection with the "supplying "of milk. lij the spine way, from the company's''point of view, its objects could' only bo effected by means of contracts. The. subject, therefore, of the mutual rights and obligations of the company and of tho shareholders and suppliers'was intimately connected with the very purpose of the incorporation of tho company, and the articles,,as vas clearly intended, could form, and did form, a contract between the company and the. individual shareholder. As for the question of fact, tho Judge hold that the plaintiffs had given the company grounds for refusing-to take certain milk tendered to it, and that' plaintiffs were not justified in refusing or, neglecting to go on supplying/milk, in , proper condition. Judgment: would tlieiofore.be given for the defendant company with costs on the lowest scaleAt the hearing Jlr. C. loiiglirinn appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Gifford Moore for thi defendants. |