COMMERCIAL TRUSTS ACT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14522, 26 November 1912, Page 5

COMMERCIAL TRUSTS ACT.

THE FIRST PROSECUTION. DEALING SIN SUGAR. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, November 25. After much preliminary legal skirmishing in the way of motions for writs of production and discovery, and appeals against orders when made, a commencement was made at the Supreme Court to-day with the case of the King against the Merchants' Association and others, the first prosecutions under tho Commercial Trusts Act. 1910. . The allegations made by ' the Crown relate solely to dealings in sugar. Tho Chief Justice .(Sir Robert Stout) was on the Bench. The defendants are the Merchants' Association of New Zealand, Incorporated (the Trade Protection Society of Wellington), the Colonial Sugar Refining Co., Ltd (incorporated in New Soiith Wales), sugar refiners and sugar merchants of Auckland, Levin and Co., Ltd., W. M. Bannatyne and Co., Ltd., and Joseph Nathan and Co., Ltd., all merchants of Wellington. The At-torney-General (Tho Hon. A. L. Herdman), Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr H. H. Ostler (of the Crown Law Office) are for the Crown, and tho > defendants are represented .as fol-' lows:—Sugar Refining Co., Mr J. H. Hosking, K.C. (of .Dunedin), with him Mr H. P. Richmond (of Auckland); Merchants' Association, Mr C. .P. Skerrett. K.C., with.him Mr C. H. Treadwell; Levin and Co., Mr/ M. Myers; Bannatyne and Co. and Nathan and Co., Mr T. Young. j STATEMENT OF CLAIM. ! There are two cases. In the first, the statement of claim alleges that threo' of the merchant firms joined as defendants are members of the Merchants' Association, whose objects and business include the restriction of competition among its members in tho sale of merchandise; controlling, determining and influencing the supply and price of merchandise, and the creatibh and maintenance of a monopoly therein. In these respects the Association has the constitution of a Commercial Trust within the meaning of the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910. I"he statement further alleges that the three last-named defendants are members of a "ring," or combination, of sugar buyers, including eighty-three firms or companies of persons, fifty-five of them being members of the Association and twenty-eight non-members. Tho members of this alleged ''ring" have entered into an agreement among themselves as to the price and terms on which they will re-sell sugar purchased from the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. They purchase in one year more than half of the total amount of sugar purchased by merchants from the Refining Company. This

! "ring." or combination, is constituted a Commercial Trust . in "the respects enumerated —"Practi- • cally the whole of the sugar consumed j in New Zealand is manufactured, sold j and supplied by the Colonial Sugar Re- ; fining Co., Ltd." j The allegations continued:—Before : the coming into operation of the Comi mercial Trusts Act on January Ist, 1 1911, the Company was in the habit | of allowing a bonus of 10s per ton to ■ all purchasers of sugar whp agreed to deal exclusively with the Company, and certain dfscounts varying with the amounts purchased were also allowed. On the coming into operation of the Act, the Company'discontinued

the bonus, and established a new scale of discounts. This scale was altered on the Ist of April, 1911,-~imd agaki .on the Ist of October. 1911, to the following:—£soo worth of sugar per month, 10s; £1000 worth per month? 11 per cent.; £2500 worth per month, 2 per cent.; £5000 worth per month, 2i per cent.; £12,500 worth per month, 3 per cent.; £25,000 worth per I month, 5 per cent. Two amended scales ' were adopted at the request of the Association, the other defendants mentioned, and the ring of sugar buyers. "No single purchaser in Zealand purchased sufficient sugar to obtain the maximum discount of o per cent, in accordance with the lastmentioned scale of discounts. In order to enable the maximum discount to be obtained, the Company permitted all purchases by the members of tho Merchants' Association and the alleged, "ring" to bo aggregated together and allowed discount to each at a rate appropriate to the aggregate amount. "No purchaser of sugar in New Zealand can obtain the said maximum discount except by becoming a member of tho said Association, or of the said 'ring' or combination." The purpose of defendants in fixing the scale of discounts and adopting tho system of aggregating purchases was, the statement alleges, to secure preferential terms in the purchaso of sugar, and thereby to secure a monopoly to enable the Association and its members to determine the prico of sugar, and to exclude from the business of dealing in, sugar all persons who refused to become members of the Association or "ring," or to conform to tho conditions imposed. SPECIFIC OFFENCES ALLEGED. The specific offences alleged against the defendants aro as follow:—In or ; about October, 1911, the Sugar Company, in breach of section 3, paragraphs (D) and (E) of the Commercial ! Trusts Act, 1910, offered, in agreeI ment, to givo to Levin and Company, Limited, a discount of 5 per cent, in respect of the purchases of sugar made by Levin and Co. from tho Sugar Company, for tho reason that Levin and Co. was a member of a Commercial Trust, namely, the Merchants' Association or 'ring' of sugar buyers, or for tho reason that Levin and Co. acted in conformity with tho wishes of the Trust with respect to tho sale of sugar. Similar offences are alleged with respect to tho discount allowed to W. M. Bannatyno and Co., Ltd., and to Joseph Nathan and Co., Ltd. Further, the Sugar Company, m October, 1911, in breach 6f section 4, paragraphs (B) and (C) of tho Act, refused to supply sugar to Fairbairn, Wright and Co., merchants, of church, except on conditions relatively disadvantageous as compared with the conditions on which sugar was supplied to the alleged trust, for the reason that Fairbairn, Wright and Co. were not members, and would not act in conformity with the wishes of the alleged trust. A similar offence is alleged in the refusal to supply sugar to Dallicar Bros., merchants, of Hamilton. The Merchants' Association and the other defendants are alleged to have aided, abetted, counselled or procured the Sugar Company to commit the offences alleged. Levin and Co. are further alleged to have refused to supply sugar to Fairbairn. Wright and Co., and the other defendants are alleged .to have aided and abetted in this offence. Tho final allegations are that all the defendants, unlawfully and in breach of section 5 of the Act, conspired together to monopolise the supply of sugar in | New Zealand, and to control the price j thereof, such monopoly and control I being of a nature contrary to the public ! interest, and that each defendant m- | tends and threatens to repeat and con- | tinue the offences.

THE PENALTY SOUGHT. Tho Solicitor-General, on behalf of the King, claims judgment for the several penalties of £500 against each of the defendants in respect of each of the alleged breaches, also an injunction prohibiting the defendants from con* , tiuuing or repeating offences. THE DEFENCE. | Tho statement of defence filed by the Merchants' Association is a general denial of the allegations. It is stated that it is, and always has been, open to any persons, to join in wholesale purchases for the purpose of obtaining iho maximum wholesale discount, and ihat it is lawful, propsr, and customary to do so. Similar statements of defence are filed by the other defendants. j THE SECOND CLAIM. In the second statement of claim, it is alleged that iv order to enable all the members of the Merchants' Association or of the "ring" of sugar buyers to obtain the maximum discount, an agreement was entered into in or about March, 1911, ar.d is still in forco between tho Sugar Company, Merchants' Association, Levin and Co., Ltd., and several members of the Association and "ring," in pursuance of which ail tlio sugar required by members was to bo purchased by Levin and i Co., who should obtain tho maximum discount and distribute it among the : various purchasers. The offences al- ■ leged in connection with this agreeI meat, which is alleged to have Deen ! entered into for the purpose of creating j a monopoly, were that on the 9th oi , October, 1911, Levin ar.d Co. paid to J certain firms or persons certain sums I by way of rebate or discount in respect [of sugar purchased dining the sixteen

months ending 30th September, 1911, because such firms or persons wero members of the alleged Trust, or acted in conformity with its wishes. Further, tha., Leviii and Co. gave, agreed, or offered to givo rebates on purchases lor the six months ending 31st March. 1912. The other defendants are charged with aiding and abetting in these alleged offences, in respect of each of which a. penalty of £500 and an injunction aro claimed. THE ALLEGED DISCOUNTS. Particulars of discounts allegedly paid on tho 9th of October for the six months ended September 30th, 1911, aro given, tho principal of these being Bond and Bell £256 13s 7d, Brown, Barrett ard Co. £231 8s 2d, Entrican and Co. £312 3s lOd, National Trading Co. £458 lis Bd, Cock nnd Co. £352 lis Cd, Green and Co. £409 19s lld, Johnston and Co. £200 12s 7d, MacKcrras and Haslett £4G2 Is. L. D. Nathan and Co. £284 12s, Neill and Co., Christchurch, £260 19s; Neill and Co., Dunedin, £208 7s; New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Association £214 Bs. A, S. Patcrson and Co. £309 17s

10d, Rattray and Son £342 lis Id, Itovds BroS and Kirk £548 17s 7d, W. and G. Turnbull £306 9s 4d, R. Wilson and Co, Dunedin. £247 12s 8d; .It. Wilson and Co.. Timaru, £214 10s 9d. Thero aro also GS other firms mentioned in tho list, whose discounts ranged from 18s lOd to £195 19s lOd. It is alleged that the total discounts paid for this period of six months amounted to £10,462. and for following six months £18,626, or £29,088 for twelve months. THE CASE FOR THE CROWN. Tlio Hon. A. L. Hcrdman, Attor-ney-General, in opening the case for the Crown, said tho charge of refusing to supply Dillicar Bros had been abandoned, as the Crown had insufficient evidence. The second statement of claim had bpen filed at a later stage in the proceedings, and was an alternative claim. If his Honour found that tho Sugar Company had not given an illegal discount, then the Crown said that the discount had been given by Levin and Co. Tho Sugar Company was an exceedingly wealthy anil wellmanaged corporation, its operations extending not only to Australia, but to the South Seas, where the company no doubt employed thousands of persons. Tho company imported practically no refined sugar to New Zealand, but imported each year 45,000 tons of raw sugar at £15 a ton, a value of £675,000. The total annual sales amounted to about 40,000 tons of refined sugar at £18 per ton, or a total annual value of £720,000. No raw sugar, except that imported by the company, came to New Zealand. The refined sugar imported was about £10,000 in value annually, so that the Crown said that the company had practically a monopoly of the sugar trade in the Dominion. Before the Sugar Company got a footing in New Zealand other sugars were imported. To get a footing the company had to deal with the retailers, and it did so with such success that the merchants were brought to their knees and came to an agreement with the. company. In the end -tho company and merchants controlled tho trade in sugar in New Zealand. I.ie methods of dealing at the start included the formation of syndicates for buying purposes, the allowance of discounts, and a bonus of 10s per ton to customers who agreed to deal exclusively with the company. When the Act camo into operation, the Sugar Company, and presumably the Merchants' Association also, were advised that their system of dealing would bo illegal. There ijere two dominant motives actuating th© Sugar Company and merchants. The Sugar Company desired to exclude all possible competition from New Zealand ; tho motive that dominated the Merchants' Association was a desire to get the special discount which the Colonial Sugar Company were offering, and to exclude from participation in this discount tho small retailers. The establishment of a discount table, giving 5 per.cent. for £25,000 purchases, practically excluded all the small dealers not in tho Trust from the benefit of the discount. They hoped to be able to show that the "ring" did nothing for this allowance of 5 per cent.. On March 15th, 1911, I'tho merchants arranged that Levin and Co. should be the members, who might nominate persons and firms eligible to receive the discount. • " Mr Hosking desired at this stage to say that the Colonial Sugar Company wished it to be understood that they knew nothing of the proceedings of the Merchants' Association. Mr Herdman, continuing, said that tho method was this:—A firm requiring sugar sent an order which was debited to Levin and Co. The Sugar Company sent the sugar direct to the customer and debited Levin and Co., but dreiy upon the customer and credited Levin and Co. when the draft was paid. For the six months ending 3Q_h September, 1911, discounts amounting to £10,462 were paid, and for the six months ending 31st March, 1912, £18,626, a total of £29,088 for tho twelve months. CORRESPONDENCE REVIEWED. Proceeding to review the correspondence which was to be put in. tho Attorney-General referred to the communications which had passed between the general manager of the Sugar. Company in Sydney and the manager in New Zealand as showing how the table of discounts came to be agreed upon. Under date 28th December, 1910, the general manager wrote:—'"The abolition of th« bonus will, at any rate, weaken the control which we at present hold over the trade of New Zealand, and, if effect were given to your suggestion, it would mean that purchasers might, during the greater portion of the half year, be attracted to purchase competing sugars from abroad, and yet by buying sugar to the value of over £3000 during the last month of the six months, would be entitled to the extra discount granted to buyers who had given us their regular and exclusive trade throughout the whole period to the extent of £500 r>er month. This is a condition of business which we specially wish to prevent, our object being to ensure a steady and continuous trade from all customers, and to check, by such means as are still available, the temptation to deal in sugars from abroad.

Mr Herd in an remarked that tho only weapon the merciiants could use in their negotiations with the Sugar Company was tho threat to import other sugars. Mr lierdman went on to say that a circular, issued from Auckland on DeCQinlwr 28th, 1910, stated that in order to comply with the provisions of ■ tire Commercial Trusts Act, their conditions ar.d terms of sale were altered —(1) iiy the abolition of the then bonus; (2) the fixing of terms of salo v at net cash in thirty days, or £ per cent, discount for prompt cash; (3) the establishment of a fixed table of extra fixed discounts, ranging from 1 per cent, for £500. to 4i percent, for £2500. On the establishment of this new scale, the Merchants' Association saw that'the retailers could buy 'direct from the company, either individually or as a combine, and they wrote to the Co.onial .Sugar Company with a view of securing one supply through itself for the whole Dominion. In response to this tho Sugar Company discovered from its books that only ono merchant would r<vcoivo the full discount, and that only' eighteen would receive 2 per cent. Tho Association realised this, and desired to s'jeure the whole supp"y in one lot. This, however, never camo into operation; tho Association never bocamo a buying medium, though it was under discussion. THE MERCHANTS* ASSOCIATION. Mr Herdman said ho would explain briefly what the Merchants' Association was. Theire had t>een local associations in some of tho other towns, such as Auckland, Dunedin, Christchurch, "VVangauui, etc. Tho Wellington Association consisted of about a dozen firms, who combined together for tho purpose of regulating pricts and certain branches of trade. The Neiv Zealand Merchants' Association came into being in. 1910. and was a registered body under tho Act of 1008. It ■ was cc-m-i posed of some local associations and some individual merciiants. Tho •■Welling con Association was not a statutory body at all, but they had rcoms of their own. Mr Herdman proceeded to road the rules of the Wellington Association. air Hosking and Mr Skerrett each objected to the introduction of those rules as being irrelevant to tho point at issue.

His Honour allowed Mr Hcrdman to proceed, on counsel explaining that his object was to show tne relation between the Wellington Association and the New Zealand Association. Mr Hterdman $,aid that as tho case developed it would be proved that these local associations acted in conjunction with the New Zealand Association, the Federal body, and co-operated with them. Ho dealt with the correspondence between the local associations and the New Zealand Association on the point of whether the Wellington As-sociation-had taken any steps to secure a full supply of sugar in order to obtain tho maximum discount possible. These, he said, showed the relation between the local Association and tho .New Zealand Association. Under section 2 of the Act they were justified in holding that the Association was a commercial trust composed of persons, or a combination* of persons, having for its object that-oJ "controlling, determining or influencing the supply or demand, or supply or prico of any goods in New Zealand, or that of creating in New j Zealand or any part thereof a mono-' poly." They would establish that Levin and Co., Bannatyne and Co., and Nathan and Co. Tyro all members .of the New Zealand Merchants' Association. On the introduction'of tho new scale in January, some alarm was experienced; and the> Wanganui Merchants' Association desired to know if the New Zealand Association was arranging for its members to get the maximum discount on sugar. Messrs Robertson and Nathan, of Auckland, were desired to see the Manager of tho Company to sco if tjie Company would be prepared to accept tho Association as the Company's clients for all purchases of sugar made on behalf of its members. The letters which passed in tho course of theso negotiations established, in his opinion, the fact that the Colonial Associations were ! part of one organisation, and that the Association fixed the selling price of I sugar. I THE COMPANY'S SELLING TERMS.

In a letter read by Mr Herdman from the general manager of che Colonial Sugar Refining Company, the following was included •— _ „ _. . •"Selling terms of the C.b.xt.O., litu., in New Zealand, taking effect from April Ist, 1911—In addition the ordinary method whereby dealers in j our vroducte purchase-their wants direct from us, it is proposed to recognise the following conditions .of transacting firm of • whoso standing and reputation wo possesiK satisfactory evWence shall be permitted as the principal to nominate other traders in New zSiiand as authorised to send their orders direct to us. Example Levin and Co., as principals, nominate, say, Turnbull and Co. and other firms. "2. The cost of all goods supped in execution of such orders shall be debited to the principals account.^ Example: Turnbull and Cos. orders to us will be executed in accordance with their directions, and jtho invoice cost debited to Levin and Co. „, 9 ,,__ "3 For the invoice cost of each delivery mado in execution of these orders we are to draw upon the nominees either on demand, less i per cent, discount, or, subject to satisfactory references, at thirty days' sight net. i-x----ample, for the invoice cost of such orders we draw on Turnbull and Co. "4 Tho amounts of these drafts shall be passed to the credit of the principal's account with us. Example, the amount of such draft is credited to Levin and Co. "a. In the event of tho nominees failing to meet these drafts, the principals shall-bo responsible for the payment thereof. Example, If Turnbull and Co. do not pay tne draft, Levin and Co- must meet it.

"6. Tho principals shall receive notice from us of each delivery made in execution of nominees' ordfers, and of tho invoice cost of the same. This notice will merely record in a summary way the cost of goods supplied by lis on a given date in execution of orders received from a stated nominee, with-

out stating tho name of tho consignee. Example: Levin and Co. will be ad-1 vised that goods to tho value of, say, I £500, wero supplied by us on a given date in execution of orders received from Turnbull and Co. Consignees of gouu. are not to be mentioned."

"7. At the end of each half year astatement of tho total invoico cost of the goods supplied during tho preceding six moutlis, both to the principals and to each of their nominees, shall bo rendered by us to tho former, accompanied by a credit note for the amount of tho extra discount duo in accordance with our published list of discounts. Example: A statement cf tho total invoice cost of the goods supplied to Levin and Co. as well as to Turnbull and Co., and each of the other nominated firms respectively during tho six months, shall ho rendered to Levin and Co. at the cud of each half year, accompanied by a credit note for tho total amount of the discount earned on tho combined purchases of themselves and. their nominees. It is thought desirable that the distribution of the discount should ba attended to by tho principals themselves, and that the company should have no knowledgo of the manner in which it is allotted."

After dealing with the form of application to bo used by the principals on behalf of the .nominees, tho letter continued:—

"9. Terms of payment, net cash for I monthly accounts (subject to satisfac- ! tory references) or J per cent, discount , for prompt cash. Extra discounts, payable half-yearly at September 30th and March 31st. will be on the following scale:—When the average amount of each month's account during the six preceding months is £SPO, 1 per cent; £1000, 2 per cent; £2500. 3 per cent; £10,000, 4J per cent. N.B. The above extra discounts will not be paid in any case unless goods to.tho value of at least £500.havo been purchased in each and every month of tho half year. Copies of tho ha -yearly statements furnished to the principals should be supplied regularly to tho head office." FURTHER LIGHT SHED. The minutes of tho annual meeting of the Merchants' Association on March 15th, 1911, were dwelt on at somo length. Speaking at that meeting, the chairman, Mr Harold Beauchamp (according to the minutes) said:—"it Jtiad been felt desirable that the largo" retailers should. bo offered the full discount less a buying commission,, and In my opinion it is most. necessary that this should receive the support of members. The o*bjects, ■ wiiich of course Jvill be quite' apparent to you, are that by taking in the large. retailers we frustrate any outside competition from securing sufficient trade to enable them to qualify for the maximum discount." At that meeting Levin and Co. were appointed principals for the whole Dominion, and were authorised to deduct from the bonus accrued or accruing any losses sustained by them in respect of vpurchases of sugar by any member'of'the Association. . . In a letter to tlio manager of the company at Auckland, Mr Philson, writing from Sydney, Said: —"You will observe that the scale of discounts has been revised, and that there is an advance from the £1500 at present existing to tho £2500, to enable tho purchasers to get the" 3 per cent, discount. This is specially intonded to meet the case of Messrs Fairbairn-and Wright, T. H. Hill and Co., and tho New Zealand Farmers' Go-operative, that is, firms which are inclined to give away v portion of vtho extra discount which their purchases entitle them to." Mr VVaikius, representative'of ' the company, writing to the manager of j the Sugar Company, under date i March *16th. 1911, said, inWr alia, re- J , garding the wholesale merchants)-—VI j have just received information that the | New Zealand Farmers' Association's i syndicate havo accepted, unconditionI ally, tho offer made to them by tho New Zealand Merchants' Association, j and will, therefore, I take it.'in-duo : course lie nominated to you litdividuj ally by Messrs Levin and Co., tho prin- j \ cipal for the united merchants of tho i Dominion. This is very pleasing, and only for the deplorable stand taken by Fairbairn, Wright and Co., would, I sincerely believe, give satis- j faction to all concerned. I am sure that tho New Zealand Merchants' Asso- j ciation has no wish to boycott Fair- i bairn, Wright and Co., and havo invited them over and over again to join I in with them, but with no success." | At this stage tho hearing was ad-j journed till 10 a.m. to-morrow. i I COMPLETE LIST OF DISCOUNTS. ! | (SPECIAL TO "THE rKESS.") j WELLINGTON, November 25. Tho full list of the discounts allegedly paid (omitting shillings and pence) by Lcvm and | Co., as given in the statement of claim, aro as "Under, the period being for tho Six months ending September 80th, 1311: — Bond and .bell £25C, Crown, Barrett and Co. £231, E. EUingham and Co., Ltd. £67, A. J. Entrican and Co., Ltd. £312, Heather, j Boberton and Co. £195, Langgiith and Co. £58, ~1. B. Morton and Co,' £30, National Trading Co. of Now Zealand, Ltd. £458, A. H. Nathan, Ltd. £10, John Reid and Co. £23, W. S. Whiteley and Sons, Ltd. £32, Aitken, Wilson antl Co. £142, D. Anderson and Son £28, Baillie and Co. £26, W. M. Bannatyno and Co., Ltd. £113, Barraud'and Abraham, Ltd. £129, J. Vigor Brown. and Cto., Ltd. £105, Burgess, Frascr and Co. £195, W. Campbell £44, Canterbury Farmers'' Co-op. Association, Ltd. £56, Carswell', and Co., £47, W. E. Clouston and Co £19, J.,U. Cock and Co., Ltd. (Nelson) £352, Common, Skelton and Co. £36, F. A. Cook £63, Ellison and Duncan, Ltd £120, H. C. Godfrey and Co. £57, Goldingbam and'Beckett, Ltd. £133, T. H. Green and Co. £409, W. Gregg and Co. £42, Griffen and Smith £99, J, Hall and Co., Ltd. 34. A.. Hatrick and Co., Ltd £134, Irvine and Stevenson, Ltd. £19, Johnston and Co., Ltd. £200. Kettle Bros. £10, T. Kincaid £50, txewton, King, Ltd. £62, Laery and Co., Ltd. £42, Mnnr.y, Roberts and Co. (Gisborne, £54. Murray. Roberts and<Co. (Napier) £* f n . A J- M acfarlane £46, Mackerrnsa Ti^.Ef'^V^i* 1 * £402 ' J - Nathan and Co., Ltd. £61, L. D. Nathan and Co., Ltd. £'84 Neill and' Co. Ltd. (Christchurch) £260, Neill and Co., Ltd. (Dunedin) £208, i\ .Z. Farmers' Co-op. Association £214, North Otago Farmera' Co-op Association £14, W. A. O'MeaTa £3. A. S. Palerton and Co. £3(55, Paterson, Michel and Co. £22, 1). Perry and Co. £30. G. Payline and Co. £40, J. Rattray and Son, Ltd. £342, Robjohns. H'ndmarsh ard Co. £141, Rovds Bros, and Kirk, Ltd. £548. M. Rn-s'ell £13. W. Scrolar ard Co. j £172. W. Tavlor and Sons, Ltd. £6n, Thomp- i son Bro«i, Ltd £2fi. Thomson ard Co. fin-1 vercargSL) £33. C. H. Tucker and Co. £147, j W. and G. Turnbull and Co. £306, D. W. •

Vutua Mid Co, £91, Wairarapa Farmers" Co-op. Association £107, Wnnf-amd Supply nnd ARcncy Co., Ltd. £29, Wardeil Bros, and Co. (Wellington) £75, Wardoll Bros. and <.'o. {Chmtchureh) £BS, Wardell &re.. and Co. (Dunedin) £23, Williams and Kottle, Ltd. (Napier) £114, Wilson. Balk and Co. £19, li. Wilson and Co., Ltd. {"Dunedin) £-M 7, R. Wilson and Co.. Ltd. (Timaru) £214, Wright. Stephenson and Co. £81, I). Kronfctd £110. Hawke's Bay Farmers' Co-op. Association £63, P. Campbell (GrcynioiithJ £10, TJnitea Fanners' Co-op. Association £3. Dalpety aisd Co., Ltd. £24, N.Z. Loan and. Mercantile Co., Ltd. £14, Georgo Thomas and Co. £3.