WAIPAOA MEAT WORKS

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 183, 5 May 1925, Page 9

WAIPAOA MEAT WORKS

THE SALE TO VESTEYS INQUIRY INTO MR. LYSNAR’S CHARGES FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD Bi Telegraph—Press Association Gisborne, May 4. The Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government to go into the sale of the Poverty Bay Farmers’ Meat Works to Vesteys continued its sittings here to-day, when further evidence was called by Air. Lysnar. Alexander Watson Mirir, buyer lot some years for Vesteys, deposed that during 19'21 he was instructed that if owners wished to freeze on tlie'r own account they would have, to do so under a consolidated rate, and the meat sent to Vesteys in Engluid for retail sale. He understood that Vesteys’ clients could not freeze on owners’ account through any mercantile firm. J. G. McCullough, sheep farmer, Whakatane, and chairman of directors of the Fast Coast Freezing Company, stated that Vestevs sent the bulk of stock purchased in Whakatane district to Westfield, 150 miles away. The only time they sent it to the farmers’ works was when it was sold on that express condition. During the past twelve months 12,000 head of cattle and 60,000 sheep had been moved by rail from the district, the bulk of them by Vesteys, whose operations were detrimental to the farmers’ company, which was only carrying on under great difficulty. Farmers could not resist the teaipta tion to take the higher price offered bv Vestevs. It was essential that something should be doin. to protect the farmer from himself, otherwise whole stock business of the country would pass into tr.e hands of proprietary concerns. Cecil Albert de Lautour, for 21 years chairman of directors of the Gisborne Shcepfarmers’ Company, stated that from his experience he viewed with the gravest apprehension the strengthening of Vesteys in the district. The chairman said he was not going to accept general evidence regarding trusts, and in the absence of counsel for the other side, the commission was going to watch their interests carefully. Air. de Lautour said he desired to speak as to the effect on ’he farmers of the district of the consent of the Alcat Board to the sale of works by the mortgagee. Bv the acquisition of the Waipaoa works, Vesteys had so greatly increased their strength that co-opera-tive companies could not possibly stand up to the opposition. The district had great possibilities for future development. and while the two works, by increasing their capacity, could cope with the work, there were other rspects to be considered.

Questioned regarding his experience ofThe Aleat Board, Air. de Lautour said lie did not believe the board could successfully have undertaken marketing meat at Home.

Francis Stafford, sheep farmer, gave evidence to a similar effect. Charles Nelson Foster, stock buyer for Ve«tCVB, deposed that he bought on exactly the same basis here as anywhere else in New Zealand. There was no compulsion to ship through his firm. .

Frederick Tolerton, manager of the Gisborne branch of Nelsons, said that it was true that in the 1920-21 season an endeavour had been made to get clients to consign through the C.C. and D. Company. Clients who consistent! v consigned to that company would support the firm’s action, as they continued to secure good prices. Since that season open works had been kept. Dealing with the purchase of the Waipoao works, witness said that in Februarv, 1923, he had been approached by Alessrs. Witters and Alattliews, who asked if Vesteys were likely to be interested in the’ purchase of the works. Witness said that Alp. Rowlands was the man to deal with, and asked if they had the authority of the directors. They replied in the negative, but said that if Mr. Lvsnar agreed the other directors would agree. An appointment was made with Air. Rowlands and witness, Messrs. Alattliews and Witters discussed the matter. Later in the year Messrs. Rowlands, Vestev, Trott (London), and Duncan (construction engineer) visited three local works, but no mention was nifide of buviug Waipaoa. At the latter place Air. Rowlands conferred privately with the directors. At the sale of the works witness l”'d £225,000, having received instructions from the Hastings office. , Witness detailed expenditure neccssarv since taking over the works, the total amount involved being £20,30n. To Air. Lvsnar, witness said that they gave clients’ stock preference in killing. , ' . To further questions, witness said that it was proposed to scrap trucks which were insulated with wood shavings. lie was not aware that the Railwav Department provided half the trucks in this district and the company li\lf; in tact, he did not know; of any other company’s works in New Zealand under such an arrangement. He had been unable to obtain an arrangement with the Railway Department for asupplv of trucks. “A Second Breach.”

Air. Lvsnar said that he thought thete was a second breach in connection with Vestevs ca,rrving on the old Taruheru works without applying for transfer of the license to the Alinister of Agriculture. The chairman: What section of the order of reference does that come under? Arc we here to try Vesteys for some alleged breach years ago ? Air. Lysnar: From the time of their coming here years ago, absolutely, absolutelv. The chc.irman: There is no need to get heated about it. Air. Lvsnar said it was the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to act in the public interest. Were Vesteys acting in the public interest, in the interests of the Dominion ? Were they doing something to injure producers? The chairman said that the Alinister could not have knowledge of any act of Vestevs some years ago.

Mr. Lvsnar: But be should have. The chairman said that it appeared that the quetsion could not be raised under section D. Air. Lvsnar said he regarded it as vei v serious, as bv their action Vesteys bad disregarded the law and had forfeited their tight to equable consideration from the Government. Vesteys had the old Taruheru works in 1920, but. had not applied for a license to operate till March, 19’21, so that the firm did not lia've a right to continue operations. The matter was open to public discussion in 1919, and in March, 1920, a letter was forwarded to Nelsons by tlie Cook County Council concerning the transfer. Mr. Lvsnar (to witness) t You were here in December, 1920 ? Witness: Yes. Vestevs were then in control of the Taruheru works ?—“Yes.” And von will find in your office a letter from the Cook Count’’ Council in March, 1920, giving consent tv oper-

ate?—“That might not be the date of transfer.” .... z But you only made application a few weeks previously ?—“I don’t know. I would nsk yon to produce a copv of the articles of association. ‘ I haven’t got a copy.” Haven’t vou got one m your office ?— “There is a cqpy in the office at Hastings.’ ’ ~ Can vou get a copy?— No. Prior' to the sale of the works to Vestevs, the old Taruheru works business was carried on by the Bank of Australasia ?—“Yes.” And after that the business was transferred to the National Bank of NewZealand ?—“Yes.” Did instructions to transfer the account come from Home ?—“Not my instruction.” . Air. Lvsnar asked _ witness if Mr. Zyman, Vestevs solicitor, had attended the commission in Gisborne. The answer was: He was here for one and a halt days to two days Mr. Lysnar: Did he attend the commission in Wellington ? Witness: Yes. . While he was here he was supplying information to counsel on the other side?—“l was sitting witli him.” You have been passing over such information ?—“1 gave information on matters not in accordance with facts. Otherwise you might have been represented by counsel ?—“lt was not necessary.” ’ ... .. Mr. Lvsnar: I am going to suggest to the commission at ’he proper time that your company has been well represented on the other side.