Cheltenham Co-operative Dairy Company.

Feilding Star, Volume XIX, Issue 80, 1 October 1897, Page 2

Cheltenham Co-operative Dairy Company.

The annual general meeting of shareholders in the Cheltenham Co-operative Dairy Company was held in tbe Cheltenham Hall last evening. Between fifty and sixty shareholders were presentMr W. Mitchell, Chairman of Directors, presided.

Tbe Secretary read the notice calling the meeting and the minutes of the previous annual meeting, which were confirmed.

The report and balance-sheet for the past year, as already published, were read.

Before moving the adoption of the report and balance-sheet, the Chairman asked for the opinion of suppliers as to tbe proposal to ntop Is for every 60 gala of milk.

In reply to Mr T. Wratt, the chair man stated that under tbe proposal to allot shares for money deducted, tbe share would not be allotted until £2 wa* deducted, when a fully paid-up share was allotted. By this means of allotting shares it would qualify many to sifc ou the directorate.

Mr G. R Jones thought that if Is per 60 gallons was stopped during the six summer months it would be sufficient and he made this as a suggestion as hs thought the unfortunate wretches who were dairying in the winter should be given some encouragement. He went through his figure and he found that be would have i'lo 9b deducted for the six months on last year's figureß.

The chairman, Mr Mitchell, moved that the report and balance-sheet as read bo adopted.

Mr \V. A. L. Bailey seconded the motion pi n forma.

The chairman explained, in reply to remarks, tbut last year they had made all tbe year round contracts at lOd per pound, but the directors thought of stcppiug that practice, as it was not fair to the winter suppliers, and taking the market price. They paid the return monthly less the working expenses. Their average return had been kept down by tbe contract.

Mr W. G. Haybittle wanted to know if thny had made any money this year or had they lost auy ; the balance-sheet dM not show.

Th« Chairman said they had gone ahead, but they had to put in a lot of new machinery, which made the balancesheet show a loss.

Mr Haybittle thought the balances sheet was incomplete as it did not show the position of tbe Company.

Mr W. A. L. Bailey said the profit and loss account was conspicuous by its absence. They had j-223 in calls and their overdraft bad increased, aud from this be concluded the concern was not paying its way. They were told butter was at Home, but it wan not shown in tbe balance-sheet.

In reply to Mr C. S. Potts, the Chair* man said they wanted to reduce the overdraft to save interest.

Mr Haybittle wanted to know how tL is balance sheet compared witb that of other dairy companies.

The Chairman thought it unfair to compare thii Compauy witb Rongotea, as the latter received three or four tiaiCß tl>e quantity of milk, and they had only tie one factory, while this Company bad two creameries besides the factory, which caused greater expense in working.

Mr Haybittle was under the impression that tbe Company bad been badly managrd. As compared with Rongotea the expenses were abnormally large. He thought that if the affairs were managed a little better they could do without stopping tbe Is for 60 gallons. He understood from the report they had a contract with a London firm to take tl o butter and it looked like mismanagement that they had 1113 boxes of butter left on their hands at Home. They had boxes of butter at Homo but they were not shown in the balance sheet.

The Chairman explained the butter at Home was included in the sales of butter and for which they had drawn 6£d. There were still 87?5 boxes at Home unsold. It was owing to the breakdown of the Ruapehu and the delay in shipping that their contract had been repudiated. This delay they had no control over.

Mr Haybittle thought the Company should have taken precautions to avoid the risk.

Mr W. Jones stated the directors had done the best they could under the circumstances.

Mr Haybittle pointed out the repairs fcr the three years had been j£342 and he thought there must be something wrong as the factory was only three or four years old. The factory and plant were valued at JE2814 when they started and now it was j£3663. He asked for an explanation as to this matter.

The Chairman said that most of the machinery they put in at first was wrong and they had to pull it out and put fresh in, which caused them some expense.

Mr Haybittle said that £7234 of butter was sold at Rongotea and £0440 here, the cost of butter boxes at the former being £86 and for the latter i-158. He wanted to know how the difference in cost of boxeh was caused.

The Chairman said the rough butter boxes cost them 7^rl each. Rongotea may have been getting some of thoir boxes returned.

Mr Haybittle said the cost of paper for this factory was i.'138 while the Rongotea returns showed i:4l. If the boxes came back the paper didn't.

The chairmau pointed out that this company had a " pound " trade which caused a greater outlay in paper but this bad now betn stopped.

Mr Haybifctle went on to refer to the amounts paid fot milk by the Rongotea Company and this Company, when the chairman said be (Mr Haybittle) was comparing Rongotea's balf year with this Company's year.

Mr Haybittle asked for particulars of the LB7 set down for stamps and tele grsms and tbe chairman paid it included cost of four cables to London.

Mr Haybiltle thought it was about time the directors woke up to the fact that the Company was not paying, and they .should take drastic measures to improve matters. Mr Bailoy Haid the Dairy Union made a profit of LIOOO last year, and tbe Bongotea Company, aftar paying a dividend ot 6 per cent and paying their directors and employees a bonus of L6l had a profit of L 125. Kvcry year this factory was getting worse and yet they hud said ii had got around the corner. Tbe balance sheet should have shows the profit and loss, for they were in a fog without it. This Company had not done as well aa others, for tbe Dairy Union had paid off L2OOO besides making a profit of LIOOO aud payiup a dividend of 6 per cent, while they paid suppliers about tbe same as this Company

The Chairman naid they could not be compared with the Dairy Union or Ron gctea as they (Cheltenham) did not receive so much milk. This Company ht.d nearly arrived at a finality in ex* pc nditnre on tbe plant. Mr J. Bruce said this wan about the first factory betweeu Wellington and Wangaaui and they obtaiucd the micbiuery ou recommendation knowing little about it themselves. Tbe machinery turned oat a failure aud they had to get m;w machinery. The Directors had an uphill work to coutend with and Mr Mitchell bad done his best to pull it np. The Directors hoped to piace the affairs ou a more satisfactory footing. Mr Mills admitted they had made blunder* and had to renew the machinery hi the factory. They had been losing 1500 a year, having lost 10 per cent which they should hive gained by

the butter fat es shown by the test. This loss of 10 per cent had been their downfall.

Mr Southey thought the directors had made mistakes. He wanted to know what was paid for wood at Birmingham. The Chairman said they ware paying the young man who had charge of the creamery there when in work 16s a cord to cut wood in order to keep him in the district and secure his services for this season.

Mr Sou they said they could have got it at 15s. He knew the machinery was wrong and told them so before. They had a better test now than previously. The Chairman said the machinery did not effect the test, but they should have made more butter than they did, the suppliers having taken home too much butter fat in their skim milk. The tests showed they should have gained 10 per per cent, but he didn't know that until this year. If they made 100 lbs of butter from 100 lbs of butter-fat they had been satisfied, but they should havo made 110 lbs of butter.

Mr \V. Jones wanted to know if Mr Southev had received as much from this factory for milk as from the Dairy Union.

Mr Southey : Yes, more, by a long way.

Mr W. Jones said Birmingham had previously been a drawback hut now it was doing better.

Mr Potts thought there wes no doubt but the short supply of iniJv was the cause of their position. He was not in favor of stopping Is per 60 gallons of milk.

Mr Morton thought the balance sheet wanted looking into and that the overdraft should be reduced.

Mr G. R. Jones considered the basis of success was an increased eapply. He advocated the erection of a creamery at Taonui station to relieve tbe Colyton creamery. Besides it would induce other suppliers to join this company. There "•oold he an increased sappJy from at ieaat 100 cows to the Colyton creamery this season and they would Lave to pat in another separator there. He con» sidered it wonld pay hotter to put a creamery at Taonni than put another separator in at Colyton, besides it wonld be convenient in caae of accident. He thought L 250 would build a oreamery. In reply to Mr Southey tun chairman said they had decided to put a new separator in at Birmingham if the supply warranted it and he believed they would get it this gammer. They coold not put in new machinery and reduce tbe overdraft at th»; same time. They had lost LB7 at Birmingham last year and a new separator would cost L9O.

On tbe motion of Mr G. R Jones and seconded by Mr Bailey it whs resolved that tbe report and balance sheet be adopted with the exception that tbe Is per 60 gallons be stopped during the six summer months only. The Chairman said this would mean £278 on last year's figures. Messrs W. Jones, W. G. Pearce and G. R Jones were re-elected unopposed to the directorate. They each thanked the shareholders for tbe confidene/a placed in them.

MesHM G. P. Church and E. Goodbehere were re-elected auditors.

Tbe question of a creamery at Taonui was further discussed, the Directors expressing opinions favourable to Mr G. R. Jone's proposal, but thought tbe question of financing stood in tie way and required some consideration. The matter was dropped on the understand ing that the Directors would consider the proposal.

A vote of thanks was accorded to the Directors on the motion of Mr Morton, and seconded by Mr Cunningham. A vote of thanks was, also, accorded to tbe staff.

At the conclusion of tbe shareholders' meetiag the Directors met and reelected Mr W. Mitchell chairman.