COSTLY LITIGATION. THE COAL VEND CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 74, 27 March 1912, Page 8

COSTLY LITIGATION. THE COAL VEND CASE.

fraoM our own coeeespondent.] SYDNEY, 23rd March. It was not to be expected that the Coal Vend would die without a struggle. As soon as judgment "was delivered against it by Mr. Justice Isaacs two or three months. ago, preliminary notice of appeal to the High Court was given on behalf of the defendant colliery,proprietors and shipping -companies. It was estimated that the costs of the trial ran into something like £30,000; but the lawyers are to have eoine more money, out of it before the case is finally disposed of. It was a record case in several ways. It was a record for the length of time the hearing occupied. It was a record for the length of counsel's speeches, and Mr. Justice Isaacs established a record for the length of his judgment— a ponderous mass of typewritten matter, aggregating about 120,000 \vords, enough to fill a couple of ordinary sized books. It was the first prosecution of the kind in the Commonwealth, j the prosecution of an alleged monopoly, and the Judge not only called it a monopoly, but an intolerable monopoly in restraint of trade. The proceedings wer# taken under the Australian Industries Preservation ( (A-nti-truat) Act. Supplementary completed notices of appeal have now been lodged on behalf of the defendant companies. The colliery proprietors are contesting the soundness ofthe judgment on some thirty grounds, the shipping companies on outeen, and Messrs. -J. and < 'A. Brown ■on - twelve. Some of the objections are common to all of the defendants, But an analysis of the documents- filed indicates that upwards of thirty separate ; ssue& will be raised on the appeal. Amongst the contentions are that the judgment was erroneous, both as to its v conclusions on facts and as regards, the law applicable to those facts ; also generally that it was against evidence ana the weight of evidence. The appeals ask that the judgment and decree of Mi 1 . Justice Isaacs may be wholly^ set aside and reversed. The mass of evidence and the unusually extensive nature of the judgment render the preparation of the printed record a matter of unusual magnitude, and if the documents are to be read at the hearing practically an entire ordinary term of the High Court will be required to deal with the case. Meanwhile, action has been taken by the Customs Department against the Melbourne Steamship Company and James Paterson and Co.* in 'respect of matters arising out of the Coal Vend cases. The department, it is understood, socght for certain information. One company, it is alleged, refuted to give it, while the other company supplied information which tho department avers was unsatisfactory.