AUCTION SALES

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 155, 26 March 1919, Page 10

AUCTION SALES

! ■'■ . .FORTHCOMING FIXTUBES, 1 .'■''.-' ' ; :'' r :V""."'"_; TO-DAY;'/ :. V '105 Customhouse Quay! Wellington, 11 a.m. y -Sale of Motor. Oars'(S; Q. Nathan and ! > -do.- •• "■ ■ ■• ■ ( 157 Lambton Quay, Wellington. 1.50 p.m.--Sale of -wire nails (E.- Johnston and Co.). !-' ■■ Waikanae Yards,. 2.30 . p.m.-Stock Sale I (N.Z. Loan Co., Abra&um and Williams, I: Dalijety- arid. Co.) "'..• ' i, 129 Featheraton Street, Wellington, I p.m. ! : i . -Sale oM'a-rm Proporty (DSlgety and i Co.)"' " V" •' •■■- (-•■ V ,- TO-MORROW. &'"'■ Te Vr'u Ormondville, 1.50 p.m.-Land sale [■'-'.'■ ; : (H.B;..rarmerß ! ). ■ ?•'.- ■■■' '-"'••'FRIDAY.' : t 195 Lambtoni Quay,. Wellington, 2.30 p.m.-- }-" -Suburban-property-Bale..(Harcourt and t■■ .oo.). ""■ •. '"..:«■;-•..

CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY ./-.. COMPANIES' 'RELATIONSHIP WITH' SUPPLIERS. (By" Correspondent.) ■■';• Palmerston North, March 25. ■• A-' case, having an important bearing • on' the relationship if co-operative dairy companies to 'their..suppliers was heard, in thoVMag-istcftte's Court to-day. ' The 'Whakaronga. Dairy; Co. claimed from J.-, B. and;A. Cooper.-.farmers, Whakaronga, the sunt-of J!20,-representing a.call.oi 2s. 'oneach of 200 shares made by.tjie company'on v its milk-supplyinjj share-s-holders. ..-■ It .was contended on behalf of the defendants that they had been'-perfectly willing to become milk-supplying shareholders, and had supplied milk till, as counsel put-it, they had been absolutely 1 driven away by tho,action of the directors -in deducting one penny per lb.'on'butterfat'supplied by them until such time as •thev would consent to"sign'an agreement binding-, themselves to supply .the Vvha■karonga'factory. / The defendants'were technically' non-supplying shareholders, : now-sued as, such, .but' they had been prevented from 'continuing as suppliers by the aotof the directors: When tho directors persisted ,in making the. deduction the;defendants;discontinued sup-■rilying-tire.-.company. They had originally taken over, the shares from, the .party' from' whom they had purchased • their ■ farm. The company' had put throu.th tho transfer of ..these shares to the -defendants without making any mention of their having to sign an agreement binding; themselves lb,supply the AVliakaronga. factory for 'ii' : certain tenvi. ■ The defendants wore iio\v supplying Nathan's factory, and the shares in question were . absolutely 'linsalwiW*. They were not entitled to'dividends, and they sot. no ' benefit from fliem. On the' grounds of "enuity.' apd' ,gnod conscience," "counsel .'submitted that the.defendnnto should not. pVmade to pay the calls on these "lmree. -- ' Cnmbatiiv? ,tbis orirnmertt Mr. Sert said,.that,'the -defendants had refused •to edisrV'' oirtvtheir obligations. ..Thero • wns" no' reason, why they should 1» treated : 'different'--!- front other shwholderFi and ; exetjmted- from signing ..the. customary '' apreenient. In Viviiif judsrmeiit for the uli>.intiff His 'WarshiT). iHimmenlcd Hiat.flic who'e basi= On wliich dairy cnih- . panie.? could, carry put : l;.beir pperatio"3. was that of assured supplies l of milk. In. the case, in quostio'von the foi-mntion of , the company, the shareholders liad found- , if■ necessary to give; an lindertakins to simnly. all ■' l ,lv (> X r . "PF'" ..t° I-' 1 " Wliakaw"!!■ Tiie/defendanls had bought'the shares of/their own,free..will,, and there. -.was no reason why they should be placed on a difforenf -footing "from other suppliers. They, must .meet, the calls made on account of the shares they held;