APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 191, 8 May 1919, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

ABATTOIR FINANCE REFUNDS DUE TO BUTCHERS The Appeal Court was engaged yesterday in hearing tliu appeal or the City Corporation, for whom Mr. J. O'Shen, City Solicitor, appeared, against ,1. Rod ami Co., represented by Mr. T. Young. On the Bench were Their Honours Mr. Justice Chapman, Mr. Justice Sim, aud Air. Justice llosking. The appeal was against the judgment of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered in the Supreme Court on November 11 last, and involved a question of abattoir finance. , _ . . ■ In the Lower Court Rod and Co. claimed that prior to 1912 they had ft slaughterhouse of their own, but were compelled by law to cease slaughtering and to bring their stock to the Wellington City Abattoirs, and to havo them slaughtered there under the terms ot tins law'and of the Wellington city by-law. That they had bad stock slaughtered and had, under compulsion, paid to the City Council sums for' such services, and that the city had in each year charged them sums in excess of the amounts payable by them. Rod and Co. claimed refunds ,as under: Year ended. £ B ; dMarch 31;' 1913 5 i 6 „ „ 1914 64 10 2 „ „ 1915 59 16 5 „ 1916 75 2 0 i; „ 1917 72 11 0 £277 i 1 For the corporation it was contended that Rod and Co. were not compelled.» have their stock slaughtered at the city abattoir, but as long as the abattoir existed Rod and Co. could not sell in the city of "Wellington any meat from animals" that had not been slaughtered at a registered abattoir or a meat export slaughter-house. As Rod and Co. desired to have animals slaughtered at the city abattoir they had them.slaughtered by the corporation's contractors, and had to pay the prescribed charges. , For a second or affirmative defence the corporation contended that Rod and Co. were prevented and barred by the provisions of the Limitations Act, 1623, sec y lion 3, from making any claim of any refund to which they had been entitled iu respect of any matters arising on or before Juno 6, 1912. It was further contended that tho corporation had in each year from 1911 published annual accounts, 'which clearly showed the finances of the abattoir, and the claims that it made to ■ charge the abattoir accounts with vero depreciation, sinking . fund, extensions ami additions, and portions, of preliminary expenses and other matters. In the year 1913 a refund was made to the payers of meat export slaughterhouse tees,', ani to Rod and Co. with other butchers (using the abattoirs, iu accordance with the balance of the profits shown in the accounts for each of two years, and the sums were accepted without- protest by Rod and Co. and the other interested parties. In the years 1914, 1915, and 1916 no refunds were made, and no protest was made by any interested party until Novemmber 4, 1916. During the three years 1913-15 the corporation expended, at the request of the Wellington Butchers Association, a sum of .£1559 18s. 6a. for improvements 'aud additions to the abattoir. While deriving- liability, the corporation paid into the Supreme Court .£lB5 2s. Bd. and M 4s. costs -in full satisfaction of all claims."Rod and .Co. subsequently amended their claim'and asked for &W4 Is 7d.,- and the corporation.denied, nny liability-.beyond the amount paid into The' Chief Justice (Sir Robert; Stout), in his judgment,' stated that it : was wortliv of note that iu whatever way the accounts had ton made out;there was standing' to the credit of the abattoir account on March 31, 1917, a balance of .£1743'175. sd. It was true [that the assets nn.i liabilities account showed that the total cash account was only £364 fls. lid., and sinking -fund investments and cash £1351 i 9s. Id: There were, however, sundry debts amounting to £459 16s. Btl., but the plaintiffs (Rod and Co.) had nothing to do with the framing of the accounts,' nor did they ever agree to them. A sum of money had. been paid "into Court, but that was less'than tho amount due to the plaintiffs. There was no acquiescence proved, unless the receipt of a smaller amount than that due was an acquiescence, and the fact' that the Butchers' Association had asked for an expenditure on improvements, additions, and.extensions, and that such expenditure was paid out of Tevenuo, did not estop the plaintiffs from 'claim, ing the amount they were entitled to. Tho Butchers' Association had nothing to do with financing the work of the corporation. The by-law fixed their liability at 5 per cent.'on the amount of the ex- ( ppmlituxe, but tho corporation claimed that the payers of the fees should surrender their funds to reimburse the corporation for tho improvements, eto., to the abattoir. The payers were nover asked to agree'to such a course, and they never agreed to give up any rights they might have had. Tt was contended that, as the council of the corporation stated that the expenditure would have to come out of revenue that meant that the funds belonging to the payers of fees would be seized, and though'the payers were not asked to consent to their moneys being taken, they must bo deemed to havo agreed, as no protest was made. There was -no authority for saying that mere silence was an estoppel. His Honour held that the corporation's defeuce was invalid. There were two other questions raised: (1) As to whether the corporation could claim any commision for sthe sale of offal; and (2) as to whether the corporation might make the same charge for tho cleaning of tripe. His Honour held' that the corporation could not claim commission, but had a right to claim for the time of officers of the corporation taken up in disposing of offal, and in respect to tripe there was no authority to charge a profit. Rod and Co. were accordingly allowed to amend their claim so that if there was any amount duo to them on ,these, heads the claim could be made. His Honour awarded Rod and Co. £304 Is. 7d. and £37 18s. for costs, and the, appeal was against this judgment. Argument iu the caso had not concluded when tho Court rose, ,