FIFTH DAY OF HEARING

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVI, Issue 10456, 24 July 1925, Page 5

FIFTH DAY OF HEARING

THE FLOURMILLING CASE. •CONTENTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTORS (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 24. In the fifth day of ,the Appeal Court hearing of the flourmilling case, Mr C. P. Skerrett, K. 0., continuing his address for respondents,, said the object of this combination was not to limit .the quantity of flour sold in New Zealand or the output of the mills as a whole. Its object was not to drive out competition or ruin competitors. It did not seek to prevent newcomers in the flourmilling industry from becoming established. The combination did not manufacture flour and was not responsible for the deficiency ah the quality of flour. Its object was not to obtain :a further monopoly or increase their partial stupply. The fact that there was a part monopoly did jaot make the combine unlawful unless it was of such ;a nature as to< be contrary to the public interest..' The test of a control being so contrary was when .(1) the prices fixed were unreasonably high, (2) it was entered into with some sinister purpose and not for the protection of the traders' own business, (3) if it effected its object by illegal means. If this agreement, ob its Lace, were of a pernicious character, that would be an end to the matter, but if it bore the stamp of innocence, then the onus was on the Crown to show its illegality. • Mr Skerrett is now occupied in discussing certain legal principles governing the ease.