WOOL TOPS CASE

Evening Star, Issue 18094, 9 October 1922, Page 6

WOOL TOPS CASE

THE COURT’S JUDGMENT. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. MELBOURNE, October 9. (Received October 9, at 11.5 a.m.) Mr Justice Isaacs, in concluding his judgment in the Wool tops case, said that the agreement entered into in 19i8 was binding, whilst the 1917 on which the company was relying, had ceased to be binding. Ho reserved for the Full Court how the judgment should be entered respecting the claims in the •action and cross-action, and consistent with the facts as found by him. Reviewing the evidence of the oliicf witnesses, His Honor said that 'Mir Watt’s evidence was reliable and strong, and his truthfulness was in no way impeached. Sir John Higgins, though attacked in many ways, was not guilty of the charges which had been levelled at him. There was no reason for doubting his honesty of purpose. His memory had tested in various ways and foimd reliable,,_ and could safely bo trusted, While admiring the ability of Mr F. W. Hughes, the manager of the company, Air Justice Isaacs said he regretted that he was unable to regard him as trustworthy. _ He not only deceived the Wool Committee, but did so by schemes which were systematically planned._ “I decline to believe him in opposition to other testimony unless convinced by circumstances entirely independent of his testimony.” [The case was one in which the Commonwealth and the Central Committee proceeded against the Colonial Spinning and Weaving Company, Ltd. The plaintiffs’ claim was for money allegedly due by the defendant company as license fees for allowing the company to sell wool tops to foreign countries. The sum of £250,000 was claimed as damages for bread), of agreement, also the sum of £282,000, paid by plaintiffs conditional upoip such release. A cross-action was indicated, involving about £1,000.000, in which the defendant company alleged that the Commonwealth Government was_ guilty of breaches of the agreement in refusing consent to further sales of wool tops except on conditions which gave the Government a greater share of the profits from the company’s operations than they were entitled to.]