Cream Supply

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 21, 26 January 1937, Page 4

Cream Supply

CHANGE OF FACTORY FARMER GIVEN PERMISSION NEW PLYMOUTH, Jany. 23. An important decision affecting every dairy company in New Zealand was given by Mr J. 11. Salmon, S.M., in the. Wavcrley Court when he gave a farmer permission to change to a factory other than tho one he had been supplying up to August 1. So far as can bo ascertained, this is the first ruling on the regulation designed to prevent farmers changing their factories, and, although not binding on other magistrates, it sets a precedent of some consequence. In effect, Mr Salmon ruled that if a supplier is dissatisfied and if the loss of his supply will not interfere with the proper grading of milk or prejudice the general efficiency and stability of the company, the company cannot hold him. Allegations Not Proved The case was brought by E. V. Soland, of Kohi, who sought permission under tho regulations to transfer his supply from the Ivohi Dairy Company, alleging incorrect weights and tests. Mr Salmon found that these allegations were not proved, but allowed the application. Soland, said Mr Salmon, was only a small supplier aud was not working in harmony -with the company, so there was no reason to retain him. Tue common law right to liberty of contract should be preserved unless the public interest was infringed. For Soland, Mr R. J. O’Dea explained that the application was laid under tho Dairy Industry Act, 1933, and section 2 of the Dairy Produce General Regulations, 1933, Amendment No. 2, introduced to prevent farmers changing their supply because of grading of their milk, and to prevent threats of lost supply influencing milk ! graders. Intention of Legislature The regulations provided that a farmer who supplied milk and cream to one dairy factory after August 1 in every year could not, without the consent of that factory, transfer his supply to any other factory until the following season. If the factory refused consent the farmer had tho right of appeal to a magistrate, whose decision was final. Counsel contended that the Legislature did not intend that the regulation should prevent a farmer from transferring his supply when he felt he was suffering an injustice, if the company was not prejudiced in its manufacture by his action. The regulation gave the magistrate discretion to grant tho application in such circumstances. I Mr J. 11. Cowdell, for the company, •said that if Soland was released from 'his obligation to supply Kohi the way ! would be open for other suppliers to do the same, and the object of the Act ; would be defeated. Evidence was given for both plaintiff •and defendant. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.