PREVENTING SUPPLIERS FROM CHANGING FACTORY

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7284, 11 October 1933, Page 7

PREVENTING SUPPLIERS FROM CHANGING FACTORY

Validity of Dairy Eegislatiou Challenged

ARGUMENT BEFORE .COURT OF APPEAL

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night A case of considerable importance to dairy farmers of the Dominion was before the Court of Appeal this afternoon in the action of John Charles Carroll, solicitor, and William James Keeley, both of Tc Aroha, against the Attorney-General. The action arises out of certain provisions of the Dairy Produce Regulations, 1933, which, forbid the transfer of the supply of milk or cream from one dairy factory to another during the current season. The object of these provisions was to prevent suppliers from threatening to transfer supplies of milk and butter to another factory if the suppliers did not receive a higher grading, the Crown contending that this had a bad effect on the general quality of supply and consequently the butter and cheese produced. Plaintiffs, who jointly farm extensive properties near Te Aroha., complain that recently dissension arose between shareholders of the dairy factory to which they supply their cream and milk and that, ©s a result of a. policy initiated by a bare majority of the directors, their position is being very prejudicially affected. They endeavoured to transfer their supply to a factory nearer' their farms, but were ultimately prevented from doing so by the regulations. Plaintiffs applied to the Court, by originating summons, to have th. 6 regulations declared void, as being in excess of the powers conferred upon the Governor-in-Council by the Dairy Industry Act, 190 S. In view of the importance of the question, it was removed for argument into the Court of Appeal. The Solicitor-General, preliminary to the opening of argument, stated that, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal on the question involved in the case, the Government proposed to pass legislation to cover the position. Mr Justice Ostler: That is against you, is ' it not, Mr Solicitor-General? Would it not indicate that the Government thonghfc the regulations ultra vires?

The Solicitor-General: It is thought that some of the provisions of the regulations might be better covered by statute.

Mr G. P. Findlay, opening the ca'se for appellant, submitted that the regulations were a tyrannical invasion of the rights of a considerable and important class of th© community, and that they wore not only unwarranted but were also an illegal restraint on the rights of individuals. There was no provision, he said, in the Act, from which the regulations could be assumed tto have the authority of Parliament.

Mr Justice Ostler: The latest announcement of the Legislature on this subject appears to be in the Act of 1924, 'which specifically prohibits dairy companios from tying subscribers to them and says that the articles of association shall be void if they contain a provision to this effect. These regulations, howover, endeavour to do what the Act of 1924 specifically prohibits. The Chief Justice? Is there anything in the statute empowering the Government by Order-in-Council .to limit the rights of trading between individuals'? Counsel submitted there was no such authority. The Chief Justice: Then the regulations aTC clearly a serious restraint of trade. Counsel quoted authority in support of his contention that there was no authority either for malting the grading regulations or for endeavouring to enforce them by tying dairy farmois to factories. The Court adjourned until to-mor-row.