MEAT COMMISSION

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 127, 2 May 1925, Page 5

MEAT COMMISSION

EVIDENCE TAKEN AT GISBORNE. MORE ABOUT THE MISSING JOURNAL. * Per Press Association. GISBORNE. May 1. There was further controversy at the Meat Commission regarding the missing journal, Mr M. Myers, K.C., intimating that a 'search of the National Bank premises had been UnavailingRegarding the missing journal Mr Porter, an accountant, when re-examined, said he was still . satisfied the. journal was among tho books given to Mr Hamilton, Mr Lyanar’s secretary. Since yesterday, Mr Lysnar )iad shown him leaves from the ledger relating to tho Admiral Codrington Mr Lysnar said he was quite prepared to show them to the commission. The chairman: “You have told us that before, Mr Lysnar, and we have told you wo are not satisfied. It is no use reiterating the position. The commission is not going to have its hands tied by any conditions imposed by you.” Mr Lysnar said the only condition was that the commission should not divulge to the other side information deterrent to the company. Tho chairman: “Tho commission is going to order the leaves to bo produced before it. Whether the information will be disclosed remains to be seen, but the commission is not going to bargain with you.” Mr Myers said Mr Witters had raised doubts whether Mr Lysnar was entitled to appear on behalf of the company. Mr Lysnar: “I absolutely give you an assurance that I have authority to appear.” Mr Jones: “That is not enough.” Mr Lysnar: ’’You can have it under seal.” The owners had said he was appearing before the commission in a dual capacity and was £ititled to be oited as a party. The chairman said the commission had already considered the point and was not going into it further. He was quite certain Mr Lysnar would not appear before the commission and have the books in his possession without authority. THE FINANCIAL POSITION. Mr Witter’s evidence was then resumed. On being questioned by the chairman, ho said the financial position in 1923 was not as rosy as it was to-day. some of the directors finding it not easy to meet their calls and because of this, the directors were prompted to endeavour to sell the works. To Mr Lysnar: Tho delay in approaching the Meat Board was due to a desire to thresh the matter out with the Minister first. Thomas L. Powdrell, farmer, of Wairoa, director of the Wairoa Freezing Company was the next witness. He said that during the last two seasons Vestey’o had operated freely in the Wairoa district and were affecting the company considerably. He regarded them as a very serious combine. Tho Wairoa works were losing busjness through Vestey’s and were faced with calls for farther capital for killing away from the works. The commission paid by Vestey’s to agents gave them a big advantage. He thought that if Vestey’s continued tp operate in the Wairoa, as they had been doing, the Wairoa works would go the same way as the Waipaoa works. SUGGESTION BY FARMER.

Contthuing, Mr Powdrell said he thought tlio Meat Board had not functioned to the fullest extent; it should do something to protect tho farmers from a combine. It should arrange marketing on the same lines as the butter control and could also assist farmers financially. His beef had been stored so long in Vestey’s works in England that ho had got nothing for it, but had paid 30s per head for the privilege of sending the meat Home. Most of this had gone to Vestey’s. To Mr Myers, witness said that during the last two years, the shareholders had been tempted to sell stock outside the district. Mr Myers: “They are not loyal to the company ?" Witness* “Farmers aro unable to protect themselves from the big interests.” Alexander Sinclair, another director of tho Wairoa Company, gate corroborative evideneo. He agreed that Vestey’s operations were detrimental to the freezing company and the farmers of the district. ANOTHER DIRECTOR’S EVIDENCE.

George Hartley, director of the Poverty Bay Farmers’ Meat Co., gave evidence as to meeting Mr Jolly and offering to raise more shares. Mr Jolly said shares in the Poverty Bay Company were not worth a snap of the fingers and urged the directors to sanction the sale of tho works without the consent of tho shareholders. Mr Jolly insisted that the bank wanted its money and said that out of the lobs of £B4,Q()Q tho banks would carry £22,000. Both Messrs Lysnar and Jolly said they would hgl)t to a finish, then the directors went to see tho Meat Board and Mr Jessop said they were lucky to have Vestey’s offer. Witness denied Mr Jones’s statement that witness had said they were anxious for the sale to go through. They met Jolly next morning and ho urgod the importance of letting the sale go through; otherwise the concession of £22,000 would not bo given. They gave Jolly to understand they would sooner lose their money than their reputation among the shareholders. . , , To Mr Myers witness admitted ho was prepared to sell the works at a reasonable price. . , Eustace Lane, a vVairoa farmer, said ho sent a shipment of beef through tho Wairoa freezing works, but did not get satisfactory results. He not only lost his beef, but received a debit note against his account. He thought it was a fine opportunity for Mr Jones, of the Meat Board to distinguish himself, but he did not do so. He simply got a letter referring him to the bank. To Mr Jones: He admitted that the bullocks were sent Home just before the Meat Board came into office. HUGE LOSSES MADE. FORMER DIRECTOR’S EVIDENCE. GISBORNE, May 2. The Moat Commission was engaged from 5 p.m. till 1C p.m. hoaiing the evidence ot F. S. Bowen an ox-director of the Poverty Bay Farmers’ Meat Company. He claimed that the shareholders of the company haa lost £498,000 and with the bank’s lose this mado a total of £541,000. The loss was due to inefficient management, tho P ur ‘ chase of an unsatisfactory steamer, and tho laxity of the National Bank in controlling Mr Lysnar in connection with tne overdraft. Mr Lysnar, lie said, diotated to everybody. Out of 42 works in the Dominion theirs was the only one which quarrelled with tho Government during tne commandeer. After the Admiral Codnngton was purchased Mr Lysnar wanted to buy another steamer and also to open up a coalmine on the West Coast and construct a railway to it. Mr Lysnar was an utter impossibility. The claims on a shipment 0.. meat sent to America amounted to £<fU,w.i and Mr Lysnar delayed a settlement tor two years. Meanwhile- the buyers would not operate at the works. PURCHASE OF A STEAMER. Withwsa detailed conversations with the local manager of the bank regarding the manner in which the finance to purchase and insulate the Admiral Codrington was obtained. He had not a knowledge ot the business and did not think Die other directors had. He had criticised the management and detailed Die steps Mr Lysnar had taken to have him excluded from the directors. The directoi'9 had pressed Mr Lyßnar to produce a properly audited balance-street of the Admiral Codrington and he presented a statement showing a credit of £27,000. The directors pressed for an audited balahce-shoet, and when this waa presented it showed a ios3 of £24,000. During the time the, works were operating Mr Lysnar presented six balance-sheets showing a profit and two showing a loss. He alleged that Mr Lysnar’s friends had got preference in meat shipments. Witness was satisfied that the

company could have been more successful by good management. The works were recklessly run. SAW HIS MONEY WAS GONE.

Cross-examined by Mr Myers, witness said he did not pose as a financial expert. He was one of the stoutest advocates for the purchase of a steamer provided it was a first-class vessel, and when the Admiral Codrington arrived he saw that his money was gone. He did not know that it was contrary to tho bank's advice that the steamer was bought. Cross-examined by Mr Lysnar, witness said he had supported a resolution thanking Mr Lysnar for liis efforts in connection with the steamer. At the annual meeting he put the facts before the shareholders and was at the bottom of tho poll. That was not a fair indication of what the shareholders thought. He admitted unwillingly making a statement to tho inspector of the bank that the company would Jose £20,000 and that he had gone about discrediting tho company. . The Commission adjourned at 10 p.m. and resumed this morning. A MANAGER’S EVIDENCE.

W. F. Cederwall. manager of the Gisborne Sheepfarmers’ Frozen Meat Company, stated that his company controlled three works, those at Hicks Bay, Tokornaru Bay, and Kaiti works. They were owned by farmers who did no buying on their own account. In reference to Mr Jonee’a statement that the Meat Board iiad been responsible for a reduction in the killing l charges, witness did not think the board was entitled to any oredit for that as the company entirely fixed its own charges. His company did not pay any commission to merchants for buying and this placed them at a disadvantage, but the directors strongly refused to give treatment to merchants and not to farmers, and if commission was paid it must be paid to all. This would increase the charges to producers. Witness’s company could not follow Vestey’s praetioe .in purchasing on the hooks, Mr Lysnar read a cable sent by Mr Jones to Messrs Forsyth and Fraser regarding Vostey’s purchase of the Waipaoa works, stating that the Gisborne sheepfarmers would prefer Vestey’s to take over Mr Lysnor’e workß than to build new works. Witness said lie had made a careful search and could find nothing recorded to give anyone authority to make such a statement on behalf of his company.