SUGAR TRUST APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 101, 29 April 1913, Page 7

SUGAR TRUST APPEAL.

CASE FOR THE CROWN

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Monday,

At tl* Appeal Court to-day, at the conclusion of his review of tte evidence vi connection with the trust case, the Attorney-General (the Hon. A. L. Herdman) submitted there was abundant evidence to prove the combination of the ring of merchants and the Sugar Company having for its common object the control of or a monopoly in the sugar trade of New Zealand. He contended that the offence was complete as soon as a combination to do something illegal was formed. The purpose need not be actually accomplished. He concluded by submitting that there was ample evidence for all the convictions.

Sir John Findlay, K.C., followed on behalf of the Crown. He impressed upon the Court that the basic principle of the Commercial Trusts Act was the protection of free competition. He put the test of a monopoly as follows: (1) Did the agreement operate contrary to public interest (a) restricting competition, or (b) obstructing the ordinary course of trade? (2) Apart from its operations, (a) was the agreement in its inherent nature in restraint of trade, or (b) had it, for its true purpose, restraint of trade? The use of the term "partial monopoly" showed that it was aimed at any interference with free competition. He submitted that Section 3 of the Act was to prevent such methods being employed in New Zealand to create trusts. If a discount was given because a person was a member of a commercial trust, an offence was constituted, even if the public were not prejudiced. He went on to show that the facts in this case showed offences had been committed under Sections 3 and 5 6f the Act. He said it was admitted that the methods of the Sugar Company prior to the Act would have been illegal under the Act, and contended the company had reconstituted those methods since the Act. He had not concluded his argument when the Court adjourned.