ALLEGED TRUST

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 19, 22 July 1925, Page 6

ALLEGED TRUST

THE CONSUMERS' POSITION

QUALITY OF SUPPLIES.

The position of the consumer who, it was alleged by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. A. Fair, K.C.), received flour o£ a less satisfactory standard from Distributors, Ltd., than before the combined action of the millers was placed before the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon by the Crown, which is appealing against the decision of the Supreme Court that the combination of flourmillers was not contrary to the public interest. The respondents in the appeal were the Crown Milling Company, Ltd. (Im-ercargill), Otago Boiler Flour and Oatmeal Company Ltd. (Timaru), and Wood Bros,, flourmillers (Christenarch), and Distributors, Ltd., flourmillers' agents (Chnstchurch). The Court consisted of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Herdman Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice MacGregor, and Mr. Justice Alperi. Counsel for the Crown were the .Attor-ney-General (Sir Francis Bell, K.C.), the Solicitor-General (Mr. A. Fair, K.C.), and Mr. F. B. Adama, Crown Solicitor of Dunedin. For the respondents Messrs. M. Myers. K.C., C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and W. E. Leicester appeared. Mr. Fair gave instances of production below mill capacity after the signing of the agreement, and contended that if legal standing were given the Millers' Company profits would become the chief consideration, and the publio would suffer.

This morning Mr. Fair quot»d correspondence to show that the public would have benefited in the matter of price if the millers, had been left to compete amongst themselves. Immediately the cutting of prices started, the public got the benefit of it, and some mills' sales dropped 50 per cent, in cases where the cut was not made. The argument that the agreement was necessary to prevent damage to the flour milling interest had not been proved by the evidence. Prior to 1922, the mills had made handsome profits. The millers, had not shown serious losses over any period, and, except in isolated 'cases, the only cutting was of 2^ per cent., by giving discount. About the time the agreement was contemplated the* year was a bad one for trade generally, and if the agreement had not been made, a more severe cut would probably have had to be made by the millers. The interests of the bakers were in direct opposition to those of the public. There was no evidence that the bakers' businesses were not flourishing. In the public interest the baker should buy his flour as cheap as possible, and sell it to the consumer as cheap as possible. The Crown Solicitor of Dunedin (Mr. F. B. Adams) said that if there had been a shortage of wheat or flour, it would have been possible to get flour from overseas, but- he quoted evidence to show that there was a carry-over from the 1923 crop. There was no suggestion that any of the flour in the South Island had to be jettisoned becauso of bad wheat, though there had been some defects in mill treatment. The census returns on 13th November of the year in question showed 48,000 tons of flour in hand, which would carry the community into April. Dealing with the argument for the defence that Distributors Ltd was necessary for the baking and other trades, and that the bakers insisted on the formation of such a combine, and persuaded \the flourmillers to join it, the Crown held that the bakers' influence was brought to bear purely from self-inter-est allied with those of the millers. A clear understanding and a common purpose between them were quite evident. He quoted instances of bakers' advances to bring in. unwilling mill owners. (Proceeding.)