BOYCOTT ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 21, 26 January 1931, Page 10

BOYCOTT ALLEGED

UNPROFITABLE PETROL

STATION PROPRIETOR'S

FAILURE

'■ (By Telegraph.) (Special to "The Evening Post.") . INVERCARGILL, This Day. To an alleged boycott on tho part of the local branch of the Motor Traders' Association in preventing him .'from obtaining supplies at tho usual rates on account of a concession in petrol prices offered by him to Motor Association members, Eobert Rose, a service station proprietor of Invercargill, attributed his bankruptcy and deficiency of £1578 at a meeting of his creditors.

"The financial summary presented by the Official Assignee disclosed unsecured debts ampunting to £1882, with assets rallied at £304.

In his sworn statement the bankrupt said that he commenced business two years ago, arranging with a Christchurch firm for regular supplies of petrol at Is 7^d per. gallon, on which he based his retail priceat Is lid, but to members of the Southland Motor Association ho gave a concession of one penny a gallo.. for cash. During January of last y'ar „ the company raised the price to Is 9d a gallon. Although other people were buying tho same goods at a finer price, he was not able to buy/from local firms, on account of pressure from the local Motor Traders' Association, which objected to him giving a discount to members of the Motor Association.' He had not been, able to become a member of the Motor Traders' Association, nor would they allow him to obtain supplies at the same prices as themselves. He had accordingly been compelled to buy his supplies at-such a price that on resale the goods did not show a profit to him. During the examination, counsel for one of the creditors questioned the bankrupt at great length as to the reaBon why he had completely settled his debt with one firm, although unable to meet his .accounts with other creditors.

The bankrupt explained that althoughhis o^hcr creditors had agreed to allow him to carry on, this one firm had refused to allow their account to run on, and had threatened to sue him. Hehad accordingly paid over £100.

The creditors requested the Assignee to investigate the payment with a view to contesting its validity.-