CLAIM FOR OVER £5000

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 3, 28 September 1921, Page 7

CLAIM FOR OVER £5000

LITIGATION IN CONNECTION WITH CITY MILK SUPPLY SUPPLIERS SUE COUNCIL In the Supremo Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Ree<l, the Wellington Dairy Farmers’ Co-oporativo Association, Ltd., dealers in milk and Stlier dairy produce, sued-.the City Corporation for 41503? Bs. s<f., moneys alleged to foe duo in connection with the sale of milk to the defendant for the municipal milk depots. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. J. O’Shea for the City Council. * Thd statement of claim alleged that the plaintiffs had sold milk to the defendant, who had under statute purchased largo quantities. The price payable wa.< arranged by agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant or by award of the Department of Industries and Commerce (Board of Trade), made pursuant to such f agreement. The prices arranged were as follow: —January, 1919, lid. per gallon; February and March, Is.; April, Is. Id.; May, June, July, August and part of September, Is. 4d.; September ,and part of October, Is.; October,, November December, (1919), and January (1920), lid.; March, 1920, Is. Id.; April, Is. 2dr; May, f ls. 4Jd.; June, Is. 5d.; July and August, Is. 6Jd.; September (1920) to March (1921), Is. 4d. The plaintiffs further claimed that from October, 1920, to Marche.l92l, the defendants paid rates lower than those set forth above, the amount involved 'being £3938 9s. 2d., which was alleged to be still owing. For a second cause of action, the plaintiffs contended that the milk was paid for at the rate of Iflljlb. wftight to the gallon. All the milk was weighed by tho defendant corporation, whose scales were alleged to be incorrect, in that for every 421 b. 411 b. was shown on tho scales. The amount paid by the defendants, therefore, had* been based on incorrect weighing, and tho plaintffs claimed that for tho period from January, 1920, to March, 1921, 411049 ss. was owing. The third cause of. action was in respect of a surq allegedly agreed to have been paid on milk cans, namely, 4-50 14s. / / : The amended’ statement of defence alleged that the plaintiff company -was paid according to the prices arranged up to the end of August, 1920. During September, 1920, the plaintiff company was paid according to the Board cf Trade basis, namely, Is. 4d. a gallon. All suppliers to tho city daring the ‘'period commencing October 1, 1920, and ending March, 1921, had been paid in terms of a circular sent to all individual suppliers in October last. The plaintiffs bad been paid the full amount to which they had been entitled from October, 1920, to March, 1921. It was further stated: “Any alleged contract under ’which the plaintiff claims to succeed .was for a sum exceeding .£2O, and it was not executed under the seal of the defendant corporation, nor was it executed by two members of the council, on behalf of . ... and by direction of the council; and therefore did not comply with the provisions of section 132 of tho Municipal Corporations Act, 1908/* Tho defence also alleged that no contract was made by resolution of tho council (section 21 of the Act), and that any alleged contract was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the Act. Further clauses in tho statement of defence admitted that milk payment had been calculated on a weight basis, but denied that ‘ the scales used had been anything but' accurate. Regarding the payment for cans, the defendant paid into Court the bum asked (£5O 14s.J, without prejudice to any claim the corporation might have in respect of the ilse at any time 'by the company - of; the defendant’s cans. In outlining dho case, Mr. Myers al leged that the council’s action had been reprehensible. He had written a fair: letter to tho Mayor, of which no notice had been taken, and a writ had been issued accordingly. The amended statement of claim had been put in only that morning. . Janies Munro Bertram, chairman of directors of the plaintiff association, giving evidence, said that the Board of Trade had not decided the question of the freight allowance for the suppliers. He alleged that the council had decided to test the scales, Professor Marsden being asked to do tho work. It. was then that the discrepancies in weight were found. “Councillor Bennett made ft sporting offer,” added the witness, ’ saying that if the scales were wrong the council would pay.” Ono scale was in particularly bad order, he added. Crosls-examined, witness referred to the recent trouble at Featherston over the extra penny. He had been "hauled over the coals” by his directors for fixing a price for tho milk. William Henry Hcnraih, retired inspector of weights and measures, sain that ibe inspected the scAles at the milk depot on February 3, 1919. He found that No 1 scale was weighing 48J gallons for 59, and No. 2 was registering 101 b. soz. to tho gallon. The scales were made to measure gallons not pounds, and were not recognised under the Weights and Measures Act.

Mr. O’Shea: So the corporation was paying.l-55th too much? Professor Marsden gave evidence as to the examination of the scales previously referred to. Tho scales been faulty, but were now in perfect order. The. hearing will 'be continued today.