MILK LICENSES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 62, 7 December 1920, Page 8

MILK LICENSES

SUBURBAN DAIRY FARMS TWO LICENSES FOR ONE DAIRY NOT ALLOWED Ernest Edwin Lewer, of Karon, dairy farmer appealed -against the decision of the Wellington City Council refusing his application for a special license to sell milk under the Wellington City Milk Supply Act, 1919. The appeal was heard by Mr. W. G. Hiddcll, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. W. Perry nppeared for the appellant' and Mr. J. O'Shea (city solicitor) for the council. The licenso was refused because Lewer s partner, It. Isaacs, already had a liconse, and it. was held that two licenses could not be held for one dairy. Tho matter was ono of law. Mr. Perry contended that if it were held thai two licensos could not bo granted , for the same dairy, then no farm requiring two, throe, or moro peoplo to work it, could get more -iihan one license. Under tlio Act tho City Council was intended to havo a monopoly, but not an absoluto monopoly, because section 12 of the Act provided for the supply of milk from dairies in and adjacent t'o the city. These dairies could not sell more than thirty gallons por day apart from what hail to be sold to the City Council. It was novel' intended, where two or mora persons wero in partnership in a dairy, which waS defined as a farm, t!hat only one of the partners should bo granted a license. lie contended that there was nothing whatever in any part of the Act to prevent two or moro persons being I gramted licenses for the same dairy. | Tho appellant stated that ho. was in partnership with Isaacs, nnd they owned 130 acres of freehold near Karori, purchased under the Discharged Soldic-rs' Settlement Act. They had about 35 cows. They were now obtaining abou'J GO gallons per day, of which 30 gallons I was sold to restaurants and others at Is. 7d. per gallon. Their average of milk for the year was about 40 gallons per day. •To Mr. O'Shea: The City Council's price was 2s. 3d. per gallon. Mr. O'Shea: Then you are underselling tho council by Bd. per gallon? Appellant: "Yes." Ho also said he did not know what the milk vendors were Rolling. ,but he thought they were getting a big cut out. of it, for thero was a big difference between the price paid to the farmers and tho price paid uy the consumers. Mr. O'Shea, in opening for the respondent, said liliat in 1918 it.was found that the milk supply of the city was unsatisfactory. In 1910 an Act was passed enabling the city to handle the inilk supply, but this was not satisfactory, and ill 1918 certain milk regulations wero passed. These "were subject to the provisions of section 9 of the Wellington Milk Supply Act, 1910. When tlio monopoly scheme wa6 introduced, iil was thought unfair that tlio small dairymen aroiind the city, producing 20 to 30 gallons per day, should bo prevented from selling their milk. It was not intended to help dairy farmers operating on ft largo 6calc, because thosi) people could sell their supply to the corporation. Under the new regulations the city had! power to license vendors, and tlio city wns divided into four district's and four vendors - were licensed. These licensees had been in the business, and had a certain goodwill, and to cover this their profits ranged from 2d. to 7(1. per gallon, according to the amount of milk sold, and by the Act of 1919, because these licensees had agreed to tlio concession to suburban dairymen, tho vendors had their -licenses extended for a year.. Iho vendors had to recover the goodwill by tho time their licenses expired, because thero would be no goodwill allowed after that. No suburban farmer could distribute more than 30 gallons; all milk above that quantity must be sold to tho City Council. This was to prevent thom carrying on business on a largo ( scale, and cutting into the City Couiicil's monopoly. These two men 6nould have raudo a joint application for a license, but only one of did 60. In supplying milk ati Is. 7d. per gallon all i the -year round they were undercutting i the licensed vendors. Mr. O'Shea contended that the Act should be read 1 as a whole, and maintained that two licenses could not be granted for one dairy. Henry A.' Ward, assistant general manager of the city milk supply, said the department bought direct irom farmers, ana sold to tho vendors, who were licensed. and who in turn distributed \o consumers at the prices fixed by the department. The vendors were allowed to make a profit, but the profit was on a sliding scalo.*- Tho wholesale price to the vendors was 25. Id. per gallon all \m year round. The price to dairy farmers Was Is. 4d. per gallon for the seven months of summer, and they receiver -2s. in wintor, if the winter supply was equal to 75 por cent, of the summer supply. If tho winter supply was only 50 per cent, of tho summer supply tJie summer price would be Is. 2d. per gallon— at Is. -id. in summer and 2s. in winter. Tho average price paid the farmer was Tho Magistrate said that the appellant wns producing more than 30 gallons on his farm, and he was in partnership with Isaacs, who held a license to dispose of 30 gallons a day. In order -jo avoid committing a. breach of the Act tliey were trying to obtain a second license. In the Act the word "dairy included a farm, so that tho Tvhola of the milk produced at a dairy or a farm was covered. Ho was of opinion that only one license could be grani'ed, and he therefore dismissed tho appoal.