FROZEN MEAT TRADE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2733, 11 February 1910, Page 2

FROZEN MEAT TRADE.

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE.

EXTORTIONATE DEMANDS

Speaking at the conference of those interested in the frozen meat trade at Christchurch recently, the Hon. T. Mackenzie (Minister for Agriculture) gave a number of examples of abuses in connection with the disposal of New Zealand frozen mutton. The first illustration was that, by a certain siiip arriving in May, lame and .mutton were received in different lots, which he (Mr Mackenzie) sold to different buyers. The lots came by a thoroughly reliable steamer. Parcel one, containing 2oyt> lambs, was sold to a buyer, and assessment was called for damage, when 1998 were declared damaged and only 600 sound. Notice of this was received only on August 28, after all the meat had been taken from the cold stores and presumably sold. Out of the same shipment and from the same hold, he took sheep from the same freezing works in New Zealand, classed similarly, and sold to another buyer 10,670 lambs, and not one was claimed on, and not one was damaged. He left it to these present to form their own deductions. The recent illustration dealt with moat going into different cold stores and damages resulting. From live different ships meat was stored in certain cold stores and damages were awarded to a great percentage in one store. From tlie same five ships, and from the same shipments, meat was sent into five other freezing stores, on which not one penny damages was claimed or allowed. In the third illustration assessors were appointed by the insurance companies and by the purchaser to award damages. That illustration would show what two different assessors awarded on the same me cel. They were acting for the company he represented. Not being satisfied with the first assessor’s award lie called a second. The parcel consisted of 101.2 sheep. The first assessors awarded £ll7 10s 7d as damages, the second’s award was £37 10s 7d on exactly the same meat. Neither assessor knew that the other had assessed. The fourth illustration dealt with opposing assessors’ claims on a parcel oi 1104 sheep; 6do \vere damaged, and lie sought to have the claim substantiated and an allowance of 4d a stone made, equal to -id per lb. The assessor acting for him said that, with the exception of seven carcases, which were slightly bruised in the legs, the rest were uninjured by transit or handling. Regarding those claims for damages the system, then, was that 10 per cent, of a lot was brought down for inspection, which was the basis upon which the claim for the whole was fixed. Of 2500 sheep comprising a lot. there were only 105 in the stores, all the rest having been distributed, and of another lot of 4500 there were only 45 in the stores. Presumably, tlie worst has been left to be assessed as a failsample for the whole. He was refused ail opportunity of seeing if the bulk wa s there, and it was only after a desperate struggle that he succeeded in discovering that the sheep were not there at all.

The fifth illustration- dealt with double claims on the same meat. In competing for the trade at Home, some of the ageecs began to give extra concessions to buyers. Insurance for damages producers always had to put up with whether the damages existed or not, but one of the agents adopted the system of Home arbitration for “not up to quality,” and soon some of the buyers began to claim not only for damages, but also for “not up to quality” on the same parcels of meat. The system carried on was so trying that it appeared at one time impossible of correction, but after some bard battles that system of fraud was checked. To illustrate the results which attended these efforts, he stated that during six months he paid to one firm for allowances £BBI, and, after the fights, all he had to pay the firm for the succeeding six months was £1 13s 4d. Claims made on other firms were abandoned. Another result was a benefit to the shipping trade, as he was able to advise winch ships brought meat in good condition and which did not do so.