FLOUR COMBINE
CASE FOR DEFENCE
WELLINGTON, July 24. In the Appeal Court, in the Hourmilling case, Mr Skerrett continued his speech, lie declared that the object of the combination was not to limit the quantity of Hour sold in New Zealand, nor did it seek to drive out competition or ruin competitors. The combination did not manufacture flour and were not responsible for deficiency u the quality of flour. The fact tu. there was a partial monopoly did not make the combine unlawful, unless it was of a nature contrary to public interest.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA19250727.2.8
Bibliographic details
Grey River Argus, 27 July 1925, Page 2
Word Count
93FLOUR COMBINE Grey River Argus, 27 July 1925, Page 2
Using This Item
Copyright undetermined – untraced rights owner. For advice on reproduction of material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in