DAIRY COMPANY METHODS.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 August 1918, Page 6

DAIRY COMPANY METHODS.

NON-SHAREHOLDER SUPPLIERS,

A QUESTION OF COMMISSION 1 .

In the Supreme Court yesterday, befor his Honor the Chief Justice, an appeal was made by the Kltharn Dairy Company against the flecision of Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M., in the case of H. G. Barr versus the Dairy Company. The case was a claim by Barr for £44, as the balance of his share of the proceeds of the sale of the product of his mux supply. Plaintiff had supplied milk to the company, but had failed to take up the shares in the company, as was customary by suppliers. The value of his supply represented a share capital of £l9O, and the deduction made by the company against suppliers, in respect to share capital in Barr's ease, amounted to a little over £ll, In addition to that, the company had withheld the amount claimed as a commission to them as agents for handling and marketing his supplies. Barr claimed that lie was entitled to reeeiye the full return from the product of his supplier, less only the amount of the deduction in respect to thare capital represented by his milk supply. The Magistrate allowed the ilaim, on the basis of the judgment of Mr. Justice Hosking in the case of Free versus the Eltham Dairy Company, which was ■similar to the claim in the present case, and in which it bad been held that plaintiff was entitled to the amount received by the company for his produce less only the charges as against share capital.

Mr. Weir (for the company) contended (hat as the respondent bad not taken up the share® in the company on the basis of his supply, the ronipnnv was entitled to charge him commission as agents for the sale of his produce. He well knew the custom in connection with co-opera-tive dairy companies that suppliers who did not take up their shares were charged commission on the sale of their products. Mr. Weir pointed out that Mr. Justice Hosking's judgment stated that the company was entitled to reasonable remuneration for services. ITe submitted that the amount withhold was reasonable. ft represented a deduction on account of respondent's milk supply, at the rate of Id per pound of butter-fat made into cheese aaid Ad per pound of butter-fat made into butter, or, equal to a commission of 7.54 per cent. He pointed out that the respondent hat* had the advantage of the company's plant and organisation for the disposal of his produce, and he should therefore pay the company, as agents, for that service.

Tn reply to his Honor, Mr. Weir stated that the company had given no notice to respondent of their intention to charge such commission. It was assumed that he knew the common practice of co-operative dairy companies. The amount of £ll odd had been deducted in respect to the value of the shares which should have been taken up by respondent. His Honor pointed out that that sum must be profit to the company on the handling of respondent's produce. As he had not taken up the shares, it could not be placed to capital account, ami must therefore go to profit account, and the company was therefore that much better oft. He thought it was not right of tiie company to make a charge on suppliers such as that supported in tffe appeal, without giving proper due notice to do so, or without having such notice printed on their documents. Mr Johnstone (for the respondent) relied on the jndement of Mr. Hoskiil£. in the case of Free v. the TCltham Dairy Company, which was identical with the case of respondent, in which plaintiff had succeeded. His Honor reserved his decision