THE MILK SUPPLY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 224, 16 June 1920, Page 8

THE MILK SUPPLY

DELIVERY PROBLEM

WHERE IS THE CAN TO BE LEFT? MAGISTRATE ASKED TO DECIDE

Mr. E. Page, S.M., yesterday heard a c-cieo brought by the City Council against No. 1 Municipal Milk Distributing Company, Ltd. The charge was of unlawfully and wilfully committing a'breach of contract in respect of delivering milk under tho contract between the company and tho corporation, dated June 26. 1919, in that the company foiled to supply with milk James Darling; residing at Botanical Gardens Eoad, within the district of tho block allotted to tho company.

Mr. J. O'Shea (City Solicitor) appeared for the city corporation, and Mr. T. Neavo for tho defendant company.

Clause 6, section 3, of the contract is: "The comnany shall deliver as nforoßaid the quantity of milk or cream ordinarily required by any consumers within its district, but the company shall riijt he bound to supply exceptional orders unless it is in a position to do so." Section 2 of clause 4 In the license to Bell milk is: "The licensee shall dailv delivor milk and cream to all consumers within tho block defined in the schedule hereto."

Mr. O'Shea, in opening, said that the information was laid under section 9 of tho Wellington Milk Supply Act, 1919. Ho detailed tho steps taken by the City Council to brine about tho present system of milk supply and delivery. He reforred to complaints mado by Mr. Darling. interviews with Mr. Bodley, nnd improvements in the track at Mr. Darline's house made bv the City Council. The city authorities ho.d dono everything pnssiblo to. facilitate Bodley carrying out the terms of liib contract with tho milk mtpply department. Bodley wanted Darling to leav» his can about 151 to yards from his premises in ' a street in such a position that tho probability was that he would not got any milk, and also lose his can. The Complainant's Story. •Tames Darling, engineer of the Kelburn Tramway Company, said there waro two ways of approaching his house. The original access was from the carshed, aud he mado a track from Botanical Gardens Road. Bodley supplied him with milk, and up to May 17 ho was supplied regularly. He received a noto datdd May 16, statins that ho would have to place his "billy" at the Bawhlti Terrac.e end. Wit ness took no notice, and the next morning he cot no milk. lie saw Bodley and was told that oven if ho put the track in order ho would not be served with milk bccauso his' house was too far away from tho road. Witness suggested coining down from the top of tho road, but this was refused. He was not inclined to leave his "billy" on the publio road. He saw the manager of tho milk depot, and waited two days, and got no satisfaction. He also saw tho assistant engineer, and the track to his houße was nut into excellent condition. It was used every doy by tho baker. Ho had had no milk from Bodloy since.

To kr. Neave: He wanted his milk delivered within the boundary of Ills premises. His house was on tho boundary. The house was about 150 to 161) yards from- Hawhiti Terrace, about 200 yards from Upland Rond, and about 130 yards from the nower bouse. Ho would accentdelivery of his milk at the power house. Mr. Neave: What Ib the diderence between tho power houso nnd tho placo indicated at the Bawhiti Terrace end? Witness: Tho placo indicated is a public street, and the power house is not. Mr. Neave: "What you want is for the driver to lcavo his cart on tho public road nnd walk about 150 yards to your house." Counsel also said it would cost the company moro to deliver tho mill; to MK Darling than they would get from Mr. Darling for the mlllt. This company wns carrying on ot a loss of £60 per week on its delivery of milk, and he bellevod other companies wero losinu more. Tho Madstre'e: And etill carrying on. Mr. Neave: They have to. Connsel again nsked the witness if he. would be contont to accept delivery of the milk at the power house, and Mr.. Darling said he would. Mr. Neave: Does Mr. O'Shea deslro to go on? Mr. O'Shea said that he intend"d to go on. for there wero othor complaints against Bodley.' Evidence of OfUclals. Henry Albert Ward, mapaeer of the Municipal Milk Depot, said that be received a complaint from Darling about Mav 17 or 18 in respect to tho delivery of milk. Witness wrote to Bodley, though before doing bo he sent- an officer to examine the locality, and his report was that the track was not in good order, but thnt tho milk could be delivered from TJoland Uoad. Witness bad received other complaints prior to Darling's, but he was aWo to Bottle these amicably. He was of opinion that Bodloy should deliver the milk from Upland Hoad.

To Mr. Neave: He had not bad any experience in the delivery of milk. Witnrss could not w that a stipulation with respect to the hfll.v-cnna had been made by the vendors when the scheme wan Inaugurated. He could not say that It, was stipulated by the council that milk should be delivered at the doors. It woe reported to him that the milk could be delivered to Darling from Upland Road.

Paul 0. Peters, superintendent of delivery of milk, eatd he had had a large experience of the delivery of Roods. He inspected Darling's house, and stated that in his opinion delivery of the milk could bo made from Unlnnd Road. Tlio cart would stop about 70 yards from the house.

At this stage It was decided to ad.iourn to the afternoon to enable the Magistrate to inspect the locality of Mr. Darling's residence. Case for tho Dcfenoo. Mr. Neavc, in opening for the defendant. Baid that the question, they were called upon to answer was a question of law. The company was charged with a breach of section 9 of the Wellington Milk Supply Act. 1919. The rcgulatton made under the War Regulations did not affect the question. Section 9 incornor atcd and took tho place of the regulation. Tho city corporation was tho sole person entitled to buy milk for the city. That was the,central idea. Tho council took statutory power to control all milk com ing into, the city. That section penallsei a supplier to tho corporation, and subsequent sales and deliveries by the milk vendors did not come within that section Further, if the foregoing contention was not correct, in order to establish the oliargo the corporation must show tha.f the company had wilfully committed a breach e£ the agreement of June 26. 1919. Tho corporation must satisfy tho Court that the obligation imposed on thn company by that agreement was a clear and unmißtakablo obligation. It was not sufficient for the prosecution to ask tho Court to infor from the agreement an obligation that was not expressed there. Tho question of tho place of delivery was never/ contemplated by the partieß to the agreement. The agreement was silent on that point, bo that it was purely a question of law as to tho construction ol the statute aud the agreement made bv the corporation. The company was entirely at liberty as to the management, of its internal affairs. Tho central idea was that they should buy the milk from the corporation, and Bell the milk to individual consumers at a price not exceeding a certain marEln of profit. Nothing moro was provided, and nothing moro was Intended. Tliero was in the agreement an expressed provision as to whero the corporation was to deliver the milk, but tliero waj no indication of the place where the dellvory of tho milk waß to be effected by the vendor to 'the consumer. There was imposed upon the vendor an obligation to deliver tho milk within a definite and limited time after receipt from the corporation, and it waß plain that the agreement intended to leave to tho company to find out, the best wily it could, how to deliver tho milk to the consumer within six hours. It was provided In tho agreement that on the noplication of a number of houseiioldori tho company could be called upon to provide a shop, the reason for that beint' that a central depot should be established for the benefit of those living in parts inaccessible to tho delivery carts. Ho contended that tho vendors would complete their obligation if they sold the milk to everyone who called for It at tho shop. That was an extreme v(?w, no doubt. If delivery must bo given at the door, it would mean duplication of the numbe* of carts and drivers, moro horses, and more expense for upkeep. At the .moment No. 1 company was carrying on at a loss of £60 par week. What would be their position if they compiled with thin alleged obligation? Mr. Bodley's Evidence.

Henry Bodley, raanajrlnir director of No. 1 Milk Supply Company, paid he had beon 35 years in tho business. Iliß company had No. 1 block. They hart irrndually worked in the direction of liavini; all the billies placed at tho pate, and they had ondcavourcd to do that fairly Delivery was Iv horse voliicle, and they required customers to place their rcceptaclos as .near as possible to tho cart road, and that vtns In tho interests ot all the ouatomers, eo that they should

oi Jiiim s,inp-oj;„ 'qsttjjjuojq joj u ?o3 the customers was not yesterday's milk, but the day before," remarked witness. Tho milk was issued to the drivers at 1 a.m., and delivery should bo completed by 7 a.m. If there was delay at one oustomer's it meant dolay in tho delivery to following customers. In tho caBO of Wadestown they found that itj.ook sevon honrs to make delivery, but by getting the customers to nut their cans at the gates delivery could be completed in half the ttmo. The company was restricted .to a nroilt of 7d. per gallon. The expense* totalled £190 16b. 4d„ while J,lie returns amounted to Xl2B 18s. 4d. 'file supply or milk was going down, and if the corporation did not get. tho Fcntherston supply there would not be any milk at nil. When tho agreement was being arranged tho irilk Committee assured tho vendorß that they would make 2d. per gallon, but instead of that they had made a losr. During the confernce that was held there was never any question ot delivery. Tho committee were told to keep their hands oft tho management of the companies. Ho waß 'satißiled that tiie companies would never mako a profit until every billy was placed as near the cart road as possible. Tho witneas severely criticised and commented on tho work of the Milk Committee, and imputed incompetence and want of knowledge, until Mr. O'Shea intervened, and warned him tha,t he was on tho verge of uttering slanders. Continuing, idtncss explained what steps ho took with respect to Mr. Barling. He saw Darling, but the latter said he was communicating with the City Council, aud tho matter rested there. He had the most difficult district, 'and had 3700 customers. Ho took a great deal of trouble to mnko the best arrangements for all concerned, and most of tho customers had conformed to tho requirements of the company. They had eleven carts and two motor vehicles. No economy had been effected iji the delivery, and it was only by getting customers to place their cans near tho gates that economies could be made. To Mr. O'Shea: Tho secretary of the oompany would be able to give, tho details of tho expenses. They largely consisted of wages. Witness was receiving £10 per week, hut he had only drawn £15 per month, and the rest was going to a sinking fund. Thero were three oillcers getting £7 per week each, two getting £6 each, and one at £5. There wore eight girls employed. Mr. O'Shea: In tho flush of tho season you got a little over 1120 gallons at 6d. per gallon. That would give you about £28 per day, or £196 per week, .iust a few poundß above the oxpeneeß?—Witness "Yeß." You are setting up to decide where tho milk shall be delivered ?—"No." In Darling's case you made a stand-and-deliver threat?—"l am taking up the Position that if one customer putß his billy at the gate all others must do tho same." ■<„ Do you contond that you have tho right to prescribo where the milk shall be delivered ?-'Tes, in tho interests of ail the cuatomera." Evldenco was also given by Charles J. Duffy, It. H. Williams, Edward Osborne, and John Moore, all of whom are connected with tho distribution of tho mill;. The Magistrate Baid he would take timo to consldor his decision, and would give a. written judgment.