COMMERCIAL TRUSTS ACT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14525, 29 November 1912, Page 8

COMMERCIAL TRUSTS ACT.

THE ALLEGED SUGAR "RING."

DEFENDANTS CALL NO EVJLDENCE.

(FBKBS ASSOCIATION TELIGHAM.) "WELLINGTON, November 28. Mr Andrew Fairbairn, of Fairbairn, Wri"ht and Co., was further cross-ex-amined when the Trusts Act prosecution was resumed to-day ...... . Witness said h:s firm allowed all their customers in sugar the same discount, retaining one or half per cent, themselves On lines wluch they indented they charged from 24 to 10 per cent, for tariff lines. • In reply to a question as to what was considered a fair profit for a retailer to make on Neave's i'ood, witness said soiro retailers had evidently been content with a profit of 1G per cent. Counsel said he wished to ask -witness what profit his firm made on lines that were not tariffed. Mr Fairbairn asked if he were bound to answer. . The Chief Justice said that witness should not bo a*ked to disclose his private business. What had the question to do with the case? Counsel: This witness says he can sell sugar at i per cent, profit, and we wish to show „ that if ho can cio so it is by making bigger profits on other lines. Witness said the suggestion was that his firm cliarged higher prices for somo goods than other merchants did. Mc would bo willing to produce lus pricelist, to be compared by the Court with the price list of even date issued by tho Merchants' Association. After further examination the case for the Crown was closed. A NON-SUIT REFUSED. After the evidence for.tlio Crown had le«al discounts, and in that part of the hst action charging them. with having refused to supply Fairßairn, W right and Co., because they were not members of the "trust," and refused to act in conformity with tho wishes of the "trust." The evidenco was plainly that Mr Fairbairn was if °™«J ** Mr Mowbray, and again by letter, that Levin and Co. refused to have any dealings in sugar or other goods with Fairbairn, Wright and Co., because the latter had written tho Government a letter of complaint with regard to certain merchants and of members of the 'Merchants' Association. They had also tho fact submitted that since October of 1911, business relations between Levin and Co. and Fairbairn, Wright and Co. had been broken olt. i On tho charge of paying discounts, | Mr Myers submitted that Levin and Co. were merely buying agents and held tho money in trust for the persons to whom it was to be paid. Mr Hosking asked for a non-suit on behalf of tho Sugar Company on the ground that there was no evidence that the Sugar Company was aware of any application for sugar or of any refusal. His Honour said he had not at this stago to decide the case, but only to sco if thero was a prima facio case to answer. Ho considered «- thero were matters in the correspondence which would require to be answered. Mr.Hoskinß submitted that there was no evidence of any prior arrangement, unless his Honour deducted one from tho correspondence. His Honour: Well, in a case of this kind much has to be -inferred. Mr Skerrett moved for a non-suit on the ground that there "was no evidence© that the: Merchants' Association had interfered with tho business of any merchant. ■ Mr Myers took tho formal point that there wa3 no proof df payment of discounts. Mr Young also moved for a nonsuit. His Honour, after refusing the application, said: —"I do not think ifc necessary at this stage to express any conclusive opinion.' I have formed no conclusive opinion, but I think that this case requires "further investigation, nnd, therefore, I shall refuse the nonsuit. ! Tho defendants did not call any ! evlHeuce.