FLOUR-MILLING CASE

Evening Star, Issue 19001, 24 July 1925, Page 7

FLOUR-MILLING CASE

HEARING OF CROWN'S APPEAL THE FIFTH DAY [Per United Press Association.} WELLINGTON, July 24. This ia the fifth day of the Appeal Court’s hearing of the case in which the Crown appeals from Mr Justice Sim’s decision against it in tho prosecution of certain flour-millers and Distributors, Ltd., for_ alleged breaches of the legislation against trusts. Mr Skerrott, continuing for respondents, said the object of this combination was not to limit the quantity of flour sold in New Zealand, or the output of the mills, as tho whole of its object was not to drive out competition or ruin competitors. _ It did not seek to prevent newcomers in the flourmilliug business from becoming established. The combination did not manufacture flour, and was not responsible for the deficiency in the quality of flour. Its object was not to obtain a further monopoly, and the fact that there was It partial monopoly did not make the combine unlawful unless it was of such n nature as to be contrary to public interest. The test of control being so contrary was when (1) the prices fixed were unreasonably high; (2) when it was entered into with some sinister purpose and not for the protection of the traders’ own business; (3) if it effected its object by illegal means. If this agreement on its face were of a pernicious character, then that would be an end to the matter, but if it bore the stamp of innocence, then the onus was on the Crown to show its illegality. Mr Skerrett then dealt with certain legal principles governing the case.