FLOUR MONOPOLY APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 18998, 21 July 1925, Page 8

FLOUR MONOPOLY APPEAL

■ : GfIOVVM CASE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S ADDRESS J’er United Press Association. > WELLINGTON, July 21. The flour-milling case was resumed in the Appeal Court to-dny. Sir Francis Bell, continuing, said the could not be upheld on the ground’ that it was consonant with Government policy. It was highly gratifying to him, who had personally had charge of the Government during most of the period of Distributors, Ltd., that the defence should suggest that what the Government said and did was necessarily right and in conformity with tlio Commercial Trusts Act; but Mr W. G. MacDonald had had no right to say on his resigning his position as head or the Board of Trade to become managing director of Distributors, Ltd., that wipit ho then did was in conformity with lies previous policy. The Government may have assented to the agreement, and, even if it did, that could not affect the question of construction. Mr Justice Hardman : Why do you urge the policy of the Government as any indication of the legality or otherwise of this monopoly ? 'The policy of tiie Government may change tomorrow. Sir Francis Bell: We want to show flint Mr MacDonald's view of the Government's policy as relied upon by the defence is wrong. Mr Skcrrott: The Attorney-General attributes to ns arguments that the defence never used, either in the court below or elsewhere. What wo did rely upon was this: that the acts and actions ot the Government in regard to the control of the wheat 'supply encouraged and made possible and desirable jnst'such a form of control ns Distributors, Ltd., exercised. Sir Francis Bell, turning to his next point, said that the fact that many bakers were, pleased with the scheme did not dispose of the matter. The bakers wore not the only judges of the question. There was the pastrycook and every housewife; and even Iho paperbnngers were vitally interested in the free supply of Hour. Not only the bakers, but the whole public should bo considered, as it. was n monopoly, a combine, had a dictatorial say, and controlled in a sense the whole public. There was evidence that some brands of Hour were popular and some unpopular. some good and some had, and the public Ihkl the right to choose which (lour it. wanted irrespective of what the monopoly wanted it, to have. Every party to the agreement was liable to ho convicted of an offence under section gf tin' Act. All the court had to consider was the nature of the monopoly and its effect, on public infeiv ‘. lie could not understand how, by adthe course lb,at Distributors, Ltd., in... it could be held that this company Md not. “ deal ” in goods. Tim conss;,. - lion placed by Mr Justice Sim on section I was too narrow. The statute did intend to prohibit all dealings with goods. Apart from this, it was questioned whether tins commercial combine had given valuable consideration. IF' thought the company had undoubtedly done this. It (the consideration) consisted in its services in giving immunity to millers from risk of trade and in its del credere agency.