TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 22, 22 March 1907, Page 3

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Friday, March 15TH, 1907(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, S.M.) A LIGHT THAT FAILED. Robert Taylor, charged with neglecting to keep a light on material deposited on Sheridan Street, was convicted and discharged upon paying the costs. LIQUOR ON THE RAILWAY. Charles Chilcott, charged with carrying liquor in a trunk on the railway to Te Kuiti, without having made the necessary statement with regard to the contents, was convicted and fined £5 and costs. EARLY HOURS. A charge against J. W. Jones, for keeping open a billiard room before 6 a.m., was dismissed: A CIVIL CASE. Franklin v. Langley.—Judgement by default for £l7lßs 4d and costs, 20s. A DAIRY FACTORY CASE.

E. J. Walter v. Lever Bros. —Claim for £4 16s for milk supplied during" December, 1906. A counter claim by Lever Bros, against Walter for £2l 15s sd, being fines for the non-supply of milk for the milking seasons of 1905-06 (£ls), and 1906-07 (£6 15s sd). The claim by Mr Walter was admitted, and the counter claim was defended. Mr Hine (Te Kuiti) appeared for Walter, and Mr Collins (Te Awamutu) fc?r Lever Bros. Evidence for the plaintiffs in the counter claim was given by H. Lever, manager of the dairy factory, who detailed the facts as to the non-supply of milk by Walter during the periods stated. The agreement between the factory suppliers and Lever Bros., was produced to show that Waiter, as a party to the deed, had undertaken certain liabilities in connection therewith for a period of five years from the start of the factory operations. In cross-examination by Mr Hine, Lever stated that during the end of October or beginning of November, he had visited the road over which Mr Walter was supposed to cart milk and the road was then passable. There were other defaulters in the matter of milk supply and most of these had been notified that they were liable to fines for neglecting to supply His brother had entered into an agreement to lease a farm from H. Hetet. Mr Hetet had not been notified as to his liability. He had supplied three boxes of butter to Taumarunui without obtaining the consent of the suppliers'representative as 1 r vidt d by the agreement. The i; ctcry had closed down at the end of April, laet season, instead of the middle of Msy. The agreement specified thr.t the factory was to be ready to take milk not later than October Ist, but it was not ready to start until November. Owing to bad weather it had been impossible to get the machinery delivered in time. The water used at the factory was from a well close to the Mangaokewa river. In answer to the Bench, Mr Lever admitted that a considerable amount of drainage from the township went into the river and a certain amount of river water probably filtered through to the well. The water had not been analysed.^ Re-examined by Mr Collins : The butter had realised good prices, both last season and this season. Some was classed first and some second grade by the Government grader. Knauff Brothers, who lived alongside Mr Walter and used the same road to the factory, supplied milk on November 22nd, while Mr Walter did not supply until December 6th. The witness further stated that he had accepted milk supplied by Mr Barton, though he (Barton) was not a party to the agreement. About a fortnight afterwards Mr Ormsby, the suppliers' representative, objected to him receiving milk from Barton. He had refused Mr Ormsby permission to inspect the books of the Company, which Mr Ormsby, as the suppliers' representative, had a right to inspect. His Worship : The statement of claim is for non-supply in 1905-06. You were not ready to take milk at the time agreed upon, and still you

claim for the period during which you were unable to take"milk. Is that so? Witness: Yes. The reason no butter was sold was that the output for this season had been sold outright to Messrs Bevan and Co. with the consent of the suppliers. Last season some of the butter was sold locally, and some of the residents would have no other. For the defence Mr J. Ormsby, examined by Mr Hine, stated that he was ready to supply milk from the number of cows he had guaranteed, before the factory was ready in 1905. He had gone to considerable expense and bought cows specially to be ready. The milk, until the factory was opened, was wasted. He had been the suppliers' representative since the factory started. He had not examined the books of the_ Company since November last, owing to Mr Levers' refusing to allow him to see them. The last time he had applied to see them, Mr Lever told him he wanted a" white man to inspect them. The machinery of' the factory was second-hand, and came from Awakino. Lever Brothers, when approached by the directors, agreed to find a surety to the ex.ent of £IOO that they would start the factory on November Ist. In cross-examination by Mr Collins the witness said the evident reason for the factory not starting at the specified time, was that the machinery was not ready. The Company did not give Lever Brothers any notice of a breach of agreement, nor did they repudiate the agreement. Witness did not consider 7%d a particularly good price for their butter. That amount was set as a minimum in the agreement, and as a safeguard for the suppliers. At this stage His "Worship suggested an adjournment for a quarter of an hour to endeavour to bring about a settlement. It was evident that the Company and Lever Bros, were at arms length at present, but if a settlement of the difficulties could be agreed upon mutually, it would, he thought, be for the benefit of the place. After conferring with his client, Mr Hine intimated tl*at the case wouJd have to proceed as his client wculd not consent to any arbitration. Alfred Scholes, J.P., of Hangatiki, gave evidence as to the bad state of the road, and stated that late in November he had ridden over the road from Mr Walter's to -Te Kuiti, and intended bringing a buggy back. The road was so bad that he would not attempt it.

Ernest John Walter, in evidence, stated that in 1905 he saw Mr Frank Lever and stated his position to him with regard to milking. He (Walter) was in business in Te Kuiti, and could not milk himself. He, however, arranged with MrKnauff, his neighbour, to milk his cows for him during that season. The airangement was stated to Mr Frank Lever, who said it would be satisfactory. Mr Knauff had carried out the arrangement agreed upon. At the start of the present season the state of the road prevented him from supplying the factory. Cross-examined by Mr Collins : Witness stated that he did not recollect being at a meeting of suppliers when it was agreed to give Lever Bros, an extension of time to start in 1905. He remembered being at the factory with the directors when Lever Bros, agreed to give a bond to start. He did not know if it was given by them. His Worship: Were any number of cows stated as being necessary to start a factory ? Witness: Several meetings were held over the matter and he thought that cows, to the number of 250 were stated to be necessary. George Knauff corroborated the last evidence with regard to the arrangement as to milking Mr Walter's cows and supplying milk to the factory in 1905. lie did not tell the factory manager the milk was on Mr Walter's account, as he understood that Lever Bros, knew of the arrangement. They milked Walter's cows in addition to their own. This was all the evidence, and His Worship adjourned the further hearing of the case until next Court day, when arguments by Counsel, on points of law in connection with the agreement, will be held.