SUGAR TRUST CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 180, 30 July 1913, Page 6

SUGAR TRUST CASE.

CONVICTIONS CONFIRMED. ALL APPEALS DISMISSED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. In the Sugar Trust case appeal the Court affirmed all the convictions recorded by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court, and the appeals were dismissed. With respect to the conspiracy charge, the Court said the effect of the monopoly was to keep up the price of sugar to sub-purchasers, which, but for the monopoly, would have been reduced, and to make it impossible for the public to get the benefit of such reductions. Prima facie, such monopoly was against the public interest. There -was no justification for the contention that the monopoly of distribution hy merchants wan necessary to protect the Sugar Company , from foreign competition, nor was there 'any reason to believe it wa» necessary to secure the efficient and economical distribution of the manufactured article. The Court distinguished between the present case and the decision in the Coal Vend ease, on the ground, firstly, that tbe agreement in that case was not of itself illegaJ: and. secondly, that it was not detrimental to the public interest. The Court said the Commercial Trusts Act appeared to be more stringent than the Australian Act. Certain acts were made offences, and the Court had not to consider whether such was or was not contrary to the public interest. As to the. Sugar Company, the Court held that its circular of Septenrber 11,. 1911, was issued to pre/vent Pairbairn, Wright and Company earning the maximum discount. The offer to the general pnblic was fflusory. and was really an offer to one person. The Court also held that Levin and Co. was a member of a commercial trust. ?-nd that discount was given to it in that capacity. The next charge was that the Chief Justice convicted under Section C. The Court held there was evidence under Section both B and C„ and affirmed the conviction.

The nest charge was that against the Merchants' Atssociation, Levin and Co., Bannatyne and Co., and Joseph Nathan and Co., of aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring the Sugar Company To commit offences. The Court held "they Tvere all rightly convicted, and also on the conspiracy charge. Costs were allowed on the highest scale in respect of each separate appeal. Conditional leave was granted to appeal to the Privr Council.