SUPPLY OF FLOUR.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 7 November 1924, Page 5

SUPPLY OF FLOUR.

CASE NEARLY ENDED. ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION. DUNEDIN, Nov. 6. i The tiourmilling ease is drawing to a close after a hearing lasting eight full days, in which fifty-two witnesses have been examined. This morning Mr. Callan (for the Crown) moved for judgment against each defendant. He stated that the point at issue under the section was whether the control aimed at or attained was contrary to the public interest, these words being interpreted as bearing on the potentialities of the scheme in future and not on its effects. It was true that where control had operated for a considerable time it would be very difficult to avoid considering the effects, and for this reason the Crown had brought evidence to show that during the time it was in operation Distributors, Ltd., had manifested its inherent viciousness. It was contrary to the public interest because of its vicious terms of control and also because it hacl been accomplished by breaches of section three of the statute.

Tlie Crown was there to prove that section three had been broken, that monopoly by those means had been accomplished and that the case came within the terms of the sugar case. It was contended that the breaches complained of were in the form of the agreement itself. Under Government control or before the formation of Distributors, Ltd., there was no control of the millers’ output. It was contended that where the ljiillers competed better flour commanded a better market. Never before had an attempt been made as now to dictate to the public through the bakers what flour should be used. The promise of sole agency by Distributors, Ltd., was a. promise of exclusive dealing, which brought the defendant within the meaning of the Act. \ Counsel argued at length to support the contention that what Distributors, Ltd., gave the miller was a consideration or reward. He submitted that Parliament intended the statute reference to rewards should apply to such, whether offered by buyer or seller, and further, that the defendant Distributors, Ltd., as the principal not ias an agent. Mr. Callan said that if harm had bean done the defendants were guilty unless justification was proved. This might only be pleaded where a body existed to prevent the destruction or crippling of an important industry or to ensure distribution and sale. Once the Crown proved detriment the defendants must prove that they rescued the public from the present danger. If in this case it was argued that control was necessary it was equal to saying that the Government relinquished something essential to the country’s well-being. After the luncheon adjournment Mr. Callan concluded his address. Mr. Skerrett then addressed the court at length, his address being unfinished when the adjournment was made at 5.30 till 10 a.m. to-morrow.