RIVAL AUCTIONEERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 40, 16 February 1920, Page 5

RIVAL AUCTIONEERS.

'818 FOR FRUITGROWERS' , BUSINESS. FEBMr SATS IT WAS HBELnBD. A daim._u>r £750 damages ior alleged *____! i-mh> 'bofore* rhis Honor Mr. Justice C!ooper and a jury oi twelve «x tbe Supreme Court this morning. The parties are fruit auctioneers in Auckland. Mr. R. McVeagh appeared for the plaintiffs, Radley and Co., and Messrs. J. R. Reed, K.C., and; W. D. Anderaon for th* defendants, E. Turner and Sons. Mr. Mc*Ve*agh said plaintiffs came as strangers to Auckland in 1918, and set up business as fruit auctioneers. At that time aoetioneei* made a charge of seven and a half per cent for selling fruit. There seemed to be some degree of rivalry in the trade. In February, 1919, RarHey and Co. issued a circular to fruitgrowers criticising conservative methods, and promising to give eaefa fruitgrower selling with -the firm a rebate of £3 on every £15-profit made by the company on the-sate of «nich growers' fruit. It worked out •Oat under the scheme Radley and Co. would 'be aeAlrng at about 6 per cent cammis__on, and they weire tiie only firm eJtr*na*g __ rebate. That circular apparently created a great amount of interest in Hie mind**, of rival auctioneers. Turner and Sons issued a circular in reply, commented eon "a rebate of £3 on every £200 -worth of fruit sold," and vent on to say: "In tiefostfaacewe bold that no. aoEtioaeer can profitably sell local frmt under erven and a half per cent, and remain honest." That, said Mr. MeVeagh, was a _•__&»- iariy serions-aHegatian gamut «.fai ysmb starting. Turner anel Sons were a__bed to tender an apology, but had not replied to the letter. Geoffrey Squire Radley. principal of the plaintiff firm, gaxe es_3ence in support of the claim. He eaSL "the ?_>■___________ of selling fruit and allowing s rebate as the firm set out in -Che eifjeular waa a profitable, one. Witness in answer to- Mr. Bead said be 'was present at a meeting of the fruit auctioneers of Auckland on Fbbraarjr 17. 1919, at which it was agreed to _______ am extra charge of a penny per case- or bag for receiving and o!_9Bvc____g. An agreement was ■signed try the awe*£Ma*_r*ere present to make that charge, anyone failing to do so to forfeit the son ot £50. He agreed that ths extra, penny a case would pat the <_M_______j___ np to about nine and a half per cent. Mr. Reed: Did yon object _a>tt»attest ing? Witness: No. Mr. Reed: Tfet within three* e*_a_-s of that meeting you latmehed this schema of yours to under-cut the other auctioneers? Witness said he had his scheme ia hand for months before that. Mr. Reed: You agree on the 17th of February to charge this extra one penny per case and em the 20th you come out with a scheme which if carried oot, would not eprite give back to the grower the two per cent. wbie*ti tbe additional one penny per case comes to? Witness agreed that it was bo. Mr. Reed asked if it was not a fact that over 75 per cent, of the plaintiff's sellers would not have more than £W» worth of fruit sold in a season. Witness said he could not give the exact figures. Mr. Reed asked witness if he thought it right for Radley and Co., in their cir-e-ular to say that the primp purpose of the old estableshed firms was their own well-being without regard to the growers' interests. Witness said tliat was so. H» idea had always been to get in closer touch with the grower. ■Mr. Reed askesd why if there was any animosity between the firms the* witness' firm and Turner's had continued to do business after the circular complained of had been issued; and why witness had yarned for two hour 3in the sleeper on the Main Trunk with Mr. Harvey Turner* Witness replied that there was no illfeeling on the surface, but as a matter of fact, Mr. Harvey Turner was the only one of the firm he"would talk to for two hours. The other members of the' firm showed their feelings. The case was still proceeding wben the I "Star" went to press, and is likely to occupy the Court for some time.