The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-01-26

inc state MIX Control Boards equalization fund was suspended rhursday by two temporary injunc- tions signed by Judge Edwin C. Dickenson of superior court and issued, respectively, to the MIX Producers Dealers association Of Connecticut, whose headquarters are in Woodbury, and Morton E. Pierpont, Waterbury producer Dealers association.
 Counsel for the plaintiffs, Hugh M. Alcorn, Hugh M. Alcorn, Jr and William D. Shew, acted, they said, after receiving scores of complaints from farmers affected adversely by the equilization plan.
 Plan Requires Contributions
 The plan, to equalize returns for milk to all farmers, requires contri- buttons to a state clearing house from those receiving more than the average price. The money in turn goes to farmers receiving less than the average.
 It is claimed by representatives of the complaining dairymen that the plan penalizes the efficient milk producer and benefits the lazy or inefficient producer.
 Board VIII Ask Hearing
 Judge Dickenson signed the in- junction orders in his chambers during a recess of the criminal court, where he is presiding over the trials of men arrested in con- nection with the election day disor- ders. The papers were served soon afterward on the Board of Milk Control and the attorney general, who are expected to ask for hear ing on the matter within short time.
 In the writs accompanying the complaints the board of milk con- trol was described as "purportedly existing under Chapter 1O7a, 1893, cumulative supplement to the gen. eral statutes" The complaint of the Milk Producer-Dealers asso- citation, which has more than 1000 members, said that the members produce milk, cream and other dairy products on their own farms and are engaged in selling these products to retail and wholesale customers.
 "On the twentieth day of Novem- Der, 1933," the complaints stated, said Board of Milk Control issued a so-called rule or regulation, re- quiring the members of the plain tiff association and all other milk producers similarly situated to pay to said board, at regular stated in- tervals, certain so-called equali- zation fund, tax, assessment or con- tribution measured and determined by an arbitrary percentage rule fixed by said board and based up- on the total amount of milk pro- ,l, h,y nf the plaintiff association each and every month beginning December l, 1888.
 "On or about January 19, 1894, certain mem bers of said association received notice from said board that specified sums in varying amount. were due said board and immediate payment was demanded. GA copy of this rule was attached to one of the complaints.)
 Rule Called Oppressive
 "Said rule is arbitrary and op- pressive and said board is without power or authority to make or en- force the regulation above referred to and said regulation and said act in so far as it purports to authorize said regulation is unconstitutional and void, and certain members of the plaintiff association have re- fused and still refuse to pay said board the amount demanded or any i part thereof.
 "The members of the plaintiff as- ] sociation have been notified of the i said so-called rule and regulation and are affected by 1t and are in immediate danger of having their l milk licenses revoked unless they | nk Is,f lot 1,n nCcI- l ments assessed by said board to the aforesaid equalization fund. And the plaintiff association believes l and therefore alleges that said board will immediately revoke the licenses of the members of said i plaintiff association in whose be- half this action is brought, unless restrained by injunction, all of which Is and will be to the irrepar- able damage and injury of the plaintiff association and its mem- bers for which they have no adc- quate remedy at law"
 Bill for $4O8 Sent Farmer
 Mir Pierpont was described as a dairy farmer owning a farm in Waterbury of about 250 acres, with T. herd of 50 milch cows. His only means of livelihood, it was said, is the return received rom tHc Sale < of milk produced by his cows and this milk is sold under a license issued by the Board of Milk Con- troi.
 On January 19, his complaint said. he received notice from the Milk Board that the sum of $406.75 was due the board and immediate raymcnt was demanded. He alleged that the rule under which the board acted is arbitrary and op- pressive.
 Judge Dickensons' orders pre- vented, until further order of the court, the collection of the equali- zation tax and the revocation of any lice.IseS held by members of the Milk ProducerDealers associa- tion.
 Some of the dairymen affected by the plan in question claimed that the board demanded paymen, of more money than they had earned and in several cases the men had no funds with which to pay the equalization tax.
 The injunction action is the -