IMPORTANT CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1927, Page 4

IMPORTANT CASE.

DAI in CONTROL BOARD’S POWERS. WELLINGTON, March ±2. I lie Court ol Appeal made a beginning to-day with the ease Southland Dairy Company, Ltd., v the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board. It was removed from the Supreme Court for argument in the Court of Appeal ihe lects are that the Southland Dairy Company, Ltd., is a private company with the nominal capital 'of -£1)000 3COM shures being held by J. B. Mari’'wan and. Co., Ltd., and the remaining SOOr) by A. C. Niaclvwan. In .July, 10'.?1 .1. P. Mae Ewan and Co. entered ''do an agreement with the Southland Dairy Company under which the former were to have the handling of all the dairy company's output of butter so long as they remained holders of at least 20 per cent of the dairy company's paid-up capital. This contract was recognised by the Dairy Control Board which raised no objection to it. On September 2-1, 1926. the Southland Dairy Company entered into agreement with J. Is. MLoEwau and Co. (Auckland.) Palm Dairy Company (Palmerston North) and Tnupiri Dairy Company (Hamilton) respectively, by which each of those companies agreed o ceases carrying on business on its own account, to act soley as agents for the Southland Dairy Company and to purchase all buttcr’fit available in their districts as agents for the Southland Dairy Company. Each agent company was to get commission varying from £1 12s to £2 19s per ton of manufactured butter until June 30. 1927, and thereafter at a rate to he mutually agreed on. Plaintiffs now claim that by reason of these agreements, mid hv virtue of the arrangement between the Southland Dairy Company and J. B. MacEwau and Co, which the Dairy Control Board recognised, butter manufactured under the terms, of tho three agreements is entirely exempt from any control by • the Dairy Control Hoard.

The questions before the Court now are whether these various contracts are valid and binding at law, whether the nri augements is exempt from the Dairy Produce Export Control Act. 1923. and whether .7. B. MacEvVm and Co arc entitled to handle the whole of the Southland Dairy Company’s output. The question is important because if the arrangements are valid . and the claim of the plaintiff is recognisable an niTrn rr er.;ent of this kind will enable export companies to handle butler quite independently of the board. For plaintiffs Mr Myers, K.C., appeal's. with him Messrs Haggard and Cousins.'' For the defendants Messrs M’Yc-.igh, Blair and Cook. The Court adjourned while Mr Myers’ opening address, stating the above particulars, was still yiifmished.