TO RESTRAIN TRADE

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1171, 5 July 1911, Page 4

TO RESTRAIN TRADE

"ILLEGAL COMBINATION."

A JUDGMENT BY DR. M'ARTHUR.

"Sucli an agreement as was entered into between the parties was iu restraint of trade, and was, therefore, in my opinion, illegal."

So {-aid Dr. Jl'Artiiiu- yesterday in

liyering judgment in a case in which the Wellington Timber .Merchants' Industrial Union of Jiiiiplovcrs sued thu Piwi.-e Lumber, Ltd., Wellington, to recover tinsum of ,Csa 15s, ad, fur moneys alleged io ba duo for* limber levies and linos, in accordiiiici! with li»o rules of the uuion. Mr. A. Gray "appeared for plaiiililis, and iir. T, i>, Wcston far defendant. Jii stating plaintiffs' case, ' .Mr. Gray said that the union had been fanned witli the object of promoting the iutor:.tiU of the local timi-jr trade, and (a arrange for arbitration, etc. liros. and Ca. belonged ta the list of .original members ol the union, and when I'rouse JJras. and Co. were merirfd into the I'rousc Lnmber, Ltd., the managing director (or Ihe secretary of the liew'company) attended meetings o f the «mon fairly regularly, and dues were liaid on behalf of the tleieiidants up lill November One of the items in the present case was a line of £2j inllirh-rl breadt of (ho by-laws. ' " Ullclul Tor Me dot'once, it was contended that J rouse Lumber, Ltd., was never properly elected a member of lho union; tliat certain provisions in the bv-Jaws ot tbe union were ultra • "vir,£vniM that the .by-laws of t1, 3 union were iIU'SiJ, as bnns a restraint of trade Counsel iurtlier contended that the -mini' was a combination "similar" to an Amcri In Rivinj; iudßm*nt, Ins Worship «aid . -Vs it appears tu me, !hc vital quc-Vtion is vhcHlcr Hio-agrceiiieni. entered-into between the plaintiff and the defendant w a valid" one-v/hetliDr it was'an m » t ! ment that would be enforcoablo at hw " 1 am ncit going lo'enter into" line points a= voidable' 1 " an ■ n(rrecmcnt is ' voit l , or is 1 "What I do say is this: That such an agreement as was entered into l,ei.i lestramt of trade, and, therefore in my opinion, was illegal The two parties (with otUers eoncen.cd) a ? ,e"d o cuter into-, a union whereby .(he n 'n• i "n 01 ; a * '""P 1 '" 1 (0 the fcold and delivered at a price lower union RBrml Upon hy tllc P ,ai "Hff

opinion,, the whole matin h* (J'T c ' ,ar '? cl " «f 'ho article, or W. me intent or actual injury mtW lw ■tj*. power of tho combination to con!' .if ol prices. • ■ ■ ■ " taken place between the parties in ihl finds them, a,m) the Court will not '. inform A ? d " ™»M tewVto ion .at n Lf mi,bcr f ° f £ " cl > a «"»Wna4M°X a &?"«£. *•■ of-his judgment Uβ ?o I I. , Thosc ' wo Questions concerned Hie aZi nn C f ° f "" ith r«IM of admision to, or expulsion from, n company or corporation, and the illegality of t f \ K i P °T s bj ' di r«cfors to outsidrrs. A brief reference was made to bo hquestions, his Worship givin" ns h " opinion, that-the defendant company was not properly admitted as a,„ £ r " , oro'lh'wf ™ io,,,flnt, TBSM t]^

trafe ™S conclude," said the ma^ishn 'tT ,n vn e C ."-? ° f " rj,e Innd Flour Millers' Association y. Tim.iru Mlling Company, , which I consider completely answers nil questions in this .case except the one attempted In bo answered by me. I have done my b?4 to try and answer that otiestion hitherto here Wt unanswered. lam of opinion that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was tainted with illc"a . i y; and T therefore think that .inclement