COAL VEND CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1106, 20 April 1911, Page 5

COAL VEND CASE.

ALLEGED RESTRAINT OF TRADE. ADDRESS BY COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN, By Telegraph-Press Association-Oopyritrtt Sydnoy, April 10. Tho High Court is continuing the hearing of tho Coal Vend case, wherein tho Vend is charged with offences against the Industries Preservation Act. There is a great array of legal talent on both sides. The chargos aro as follow:— (1) That since September, 190G, there has been, and still is, a combination between tho Northern Collieries' Association and the Associated Steam Ship Companies in respect to trade in Newcastle coal between New South Wales and tho other Australian States. (2) That this combination restrained trade, and was intended so to do, to tho detriment of the public. Counsel for the Crown, continuing his opening address used further lengthy arguments in support of his contention that the prices fixed by the Vend had been excessive, and that it had cut prices in order to crush certain firms outside the Vend. He claimed that tho practice of the combine was to arrange that one person should get a contract and the others put in bogus tenders, and quoted figures to show that since the alleged combine had been formed there had been an excessive rise in the price of coal- through its action. lie declared that in 1907 an agreement had been come to between tho colliery proprietors and tho Union Steam Ship Company of much the same nature as. that between the colliery proprietors. The latter had agreed'to give a monopoly of the carrying trade between Newcastle, Tasmania, and New Zealand to the Union Company with certain exceptions. Tho Crown alleged that it was an implied term of tho agreement that interState steam ship proprietors should keep out of the New Zealand and Tasmanian trade and that tho Union Company should keep out of tho coastal trade. Tho truth of that implied term was largely a matter of inference from a letter. PROFITS AND PEICES. (Kec. April 19, 9.50 p.m.) Sydney, April 19. Mr. Wise, in concluding his opening address, stated, as a specific instance, that when public bodies and other States were clamouring for coal tho mines were not werked to their full capacity. The low-* est possible estimate- of tho increased profits of the Vend since 1905 wns ,£600,000 upon inter-State trade only. The Crown submitted that the greater part of this increase was illegitimate and duo to combination. Where there was no competition buyers ware at tho mercy of the Vend, and were charged extravagant pi ices. Tho Vend'sold the same coal under tho same conditions at different prices for different parts of Australia. A - COMMONWEALTH PROSECUTION. THE CLAIM AND THE DEFENCE. Tho important action instituted by tho Commonwealth Attorney-General against the Northern Colliery Proprietors' Association and certain steam ship companies, referred to in the claim as the Steam Ship Owners' Association, and individual defendants, for breaches of the Australian Industries Preservation Acts, 190G-9 (the Anti-Trust Act), in connection with their joint control of the inter-State trade in coal between Newcastle and the States other than New South Wales, and in connection with inter-State shipping in relation to the carriage of such coal, was" commenced before Mr Justice Isaacs, sitting in tho original jurisdiction of tho. High Court at Darlinghurst on April 13. The Parties. The King and tho'Attorney-General of the Commonwealth are the plaintiffs, and the defendants are:—The Associated.Northern Collieries— J. and A. Brown; Australian Agricultural. Company; Soahara Colliery Company,- Limited; Abermain Colliery Company, Limited; Caledonian Coal Company, Limited; Kast Greta Coalmining Company, Limited; Newcastle Coalmining Company, Limited; Scottish Australian Mining Company, Limited; Hetton Coal Company, Limited; Dudley Coal Company, Limited; Stockton Coal Company, Limited; Stockton Borehole Collieries, Limited; Heddon Greta Coal Company, Limited; William Laidley and Company, Limited; Frances Sneddon and Daniel Sneddon (the trustees of Andrew Sneddon, deceased); Pacific Coal Company, Limited; New Lambton Land and Coai Company, Limited; James Ruttley, Frederick R. Croft; Wickham and Bullock Island Coal Company.i Limited; South Greta Colliery, No Liability; Central Greta Colliery, Limited; Lyinington Collieries, Limited; the Associated Steam Ship Companies—the Adelaide Steam Ship Company, Limited; Howard Smith Company, Limited; Huddart, Parker, and Company Proprietary, Limited; M'llwraith, M'Eachern, and Company Proprietary, Limited, and the Melbourne Steam Ship Company, Ltd. The Claim. Tho claim is brought under Part 2 of tho Acts of 1906-1909, relating to the repression of monopolies, Sections i and 7. The plaintiffs claim:— 1. A declaration that the defendants and each and every of them have been guilty of each and every or some of the offences set out against Part 2 of the Act, and that they be convicted thereof. 2. An order that each and every .of the defendants for each and every of the offences which he or they respectively may be convicted, do pay a penalty of .£SOO, or such other penalty as to the Court may seem proper. 3. An injunction restraining the defendants and each and every of them and their servants and their agents from repeating or continuing tho said offences, or any of them. 4. A declaratibn that the defendants or each and every of them, after the commencement of the Australian Industries Preservation Act, 1906, have made and entered into a contract or contracts which is, or are, in restraint of trade and commerce among the States to the detriment of the public, and have since carried out. and aro now carrying out, the said contract or contracts. 5. A declaration that tho defendants and each and every of them, after tho commencement of the Act, formed and entered into and engaged in the combination or combinations which is, or are, in tctraint of trade and commerce among tho States, to the detriment of the public, and have since carried on, and arc now carrying on, the said combination or combinations.

0. An injunction restrnininK the defendants find each and every of them from carrying out the contract or contracts and combination or combinations referred to. 7. Such other declarations, orders, and injunctions as may be necessary or proper in the premises. ' The Defence. The defence pleadings stato that the defendants— 1. Beny ench and every one of the allegations contained in the amended statement of claims. 2. The defendants also say that the offences alleged in the. amended statement of claims were not or any of them committed within two years next before the commencement of this action, and the defendants crave the benefit of the Statuto 31 Elizabeth C. 5.