CONCLUDED AT LAST

Evening Star, Issue 18785, 8 November 1924, Page 4

CONCLUDED AT LAST

BIG FLOIHILLIKG CASE. DECISION RESERVED BY JUDGE. All those engaged in. the big flour-millina case, which has engaged the attention of His Honor Mr Justice Sim in the Supreme Court for ten days, must have bcem thankful when it was brought to a conclusion last evening. The case, which was singular for its prolonged hearing, for the large number of witnesses called, and fof the size and standing of the Bar engaged, attracted a great deal of public interest, tho court each day being well filled by members of both sexes. The case was a claim by the Crown for £SOO from each of the Crown Milling Company, Dunedin; Fleming and Co., Invercargill ; the Atlas Roller Flour and Oatmeal Mills (Evans and Co.), Timaru; Wood Bros., Christchurch; and Distributors, Ltd., Christchurch. An injunction was asked against tho Crown Rtff.ing Company, Fleming and Co., the Atlas Roller Mills, and Wood Bros, prohibiting each defendant from continuing to employ Distributors, Ltd., as its sole gelling agent for flour, bran, and pollard, in pursuance of an agreement, and from entering into any similar agreement in future with Distributors, Ltd., or any other person, firm, or company. An injunction was also asked against Distributors, Ltd., prohibiting it from continuing to act os the sole selling agent of the other defendants. The costs of the action were also claimed. "Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor), with Mr J. B. Gall an, appeared for the Crown; Mr S. Solomon, K. 0., with hint Mr W. D. Campbell (Timaru), for tho Crown Milling Company and the Atlas Company; Mr, M. Myers, K.C. (Wellington), with him (Mr A. N. Haggitt, for Distributors, Ltd. ; and (Mr G. P. Skerrelt, K.O. (Wellington), with him Mr John Sim, for Fleming and Co. and Wood Bros. MB MYERS'S ADDRESS. Continuing his address yesterday after, noon, Mr Myers said that_ if there had been a surplus of wheat in 1925 there would have been no difficulty. Under The circumstances which did exist more flour could not have been milled, and the existing stocks could not have been drawn upon. The only alternative was to import wheat, but that could not be done, as the embargo existed. Even the wheat control in 1920 would not have avoided the difficulty between October and February without the importation of some flour to meet the shortage that would have resulted IS. Fleming’s had not been put on the market. Speaking in reference to a remark bv counsel on the other side, Mr Myers said that tho supplies of northern flq'ur sent by Distributors to the south was increased. Whereas tiie ordinary supply of northern flour sent to Southland was forty to sixty of southern (the proportion at one time was thirty-eight to sixty-two), in the year of trouble it was sixty to forty. The shortage in Invercargill was not incidental to the scheme, but accidental.

Learned counsel pointed out that it would have been useless to call evidence as to the cause of the trouble at Fleming’s mill. The trouble was not understood by the staff, and they had the evidence of Mr Ireland that trouble of this sort might occur in any mill, and that alter it was put to rights its cause was not understood. So far as the trouble in Hudson’s and the Crown mills was concerned, he was not going to say more tba.n had been said already. It was one of those accidental occurrences tnat could not be avoided in the best regulated mill. Mr Donald M’Donald, one of tho millers who was called by the Crown, said that his instructions always were to produce the best possible* flour. Coming to the alleged compulsion pf bakers to take certain brands of flour, learned counsel stated that there was no evidence of this except at the end of 1923, when the troubles to which ho had referred existed. The evidence of several of the largest bakers, with experience going back before Government control to the old days of free competition, was that they always had received the brands they wanted. In this respect he thought that Mr Laurenson’s evidence was likely to be somewhat misleading; He did not suggest that Mr Laurensou had wilfully misled tho court, but it seemed that, quite unconsciously, he had exaggerated the position. His evidence was that from the time Distributors started he was unable to get any Oanutru flour. The defence asked him to investigate the position, and next day h« was able to tell them that between September, 1922, and April, 1923, his firm had had eighty-three tons of Oamaru flour. It was in April that the rise in price of Oamaru flour to Dunedin bakers took place, and tho inference was that Mr Laurenson had not tried to get flour afterwards because he was not prepared to pay the additional money. If some scheme of restriction were not permissible, learned counsel proceeded, then no scheme of combination was permissible under the Commercial Trusts Act. They had heard Mr Love say that the capacity of his two mills was 7,765 tons, and the notional capacity was 2,750 tons. Mr Eiby had said that the output of ids mill was 17,000 tons —equal to two and a-half times his notional capacity. According to Mr Love there were many mills in the country whose capacity was a great deal more than their notional capacity. If that were so, the court would realise, that a period of price-cutting might well result in a few of the larger mills squeezing out their competitors, when the bakers and the public might well find themselves under a much stronger monopoly than could possibly exist under the present system. After answering some of the minor complaints against Distributors, Ltd., learned counsel submitted that the cost of marketing had no bearing whatever upon (ho case. It did not affect the price of flour to the baker or to the public. It was a matter entirely between the millers and Distributors. Mis Honor: Unless it increases the cost to the consumer. Mr Myers: Yes, not unless. Learned counsel went on to state that it did not increase the cost to tho consumer, because tho millers were all shareholders of Distributors. There was the evidence of Mr M’Donaid that tho cost of distribution of flour was not less than 5J per cent. Of that \{ per cent, was only temporary in connection with the Auckland business of Distributors. There was no evidence of an increase of 20? in the price of Invercargill flour. In regard to Christie’s Hour, it was never intended to charge the extra 5s which was mentioned in evidence, although that amount could have been charged under Government regulations. In conclusion, Mr Myers urged that the question should he decided on broader grounds than the consideration of such small and infinitesimal matters. It was submitted that on tho broad grounds put forward by his learned friends and_ himself they were entitled to judgment in their favor. JUDGMENT RESERVED. Mr Adams having replied at length, His Honor intimated that he would take time to consider the matter. His Honor added that he was much indebted to counsel on both sides for the careful way in which they had argued the case.