CROWN APPEALS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 20 July 1925, Page 9

CROWN APPEALS.

IN DISTRIBUTORS’ LTD. CAfSE. AN IMPORTANT ACTION. BEFORE, COURT OF APPEAL. (BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION*.) WELLINGTON, July 20. Bath divisions of the Appeal Court were engaged to-day in hearing the appeal in the flour milling case heal cl at Dunedin wherein penalties "ere sought for alleged, blenches of the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910 (relating to monopolies) from the Crown Milling Company, Limited, of Dunedin, flour millers; Fleming and Company, Ltd., of Invercargill, flourmillers; Atlas Roller Flour .and Oatmeal Mills (Evans and Co ) ■ Tima-ru Flourmillers, Wood Bros.. Ltd.,’ Christchurch, * flourmillers,; and Distributors, Ltd., of Gh.nstchu.ich, flourmillers’ agents, which companies were the respondents in the present proceedings. This case ' s > ."'th the sugar case of 1912, the most important proceedings heard in New Zealnaa under the Commercial Trusts Act The offence alleged was that the respondents conspired together to monopolise, wholly or partially , the supply of flour, bran and pollard in New Zealand and to control its price and supply, such monopoly being of a nature contrary to the public interest. It- was alleged that control was exercised by the incorporation, in October, 1923, of Distributors Ltd., for the purpose of acting as sole selling agent for flour, bran, and pollard, for all such flourmillers as should enter into an agreement to that effect. After such incorporation nearly all the flourmillers in New Zealand entered into this agreement for a period of about six years. The Crown contended that the incorporation of Distributors Ltd. resulted in many bakers being unable to obtain the brands of flour ordered, and only o-etting an inferior article. Mr. Justice Sim found in favour of respondents, and the Crown i s now apnealing against that decision. The case is likely to last a week. Sir Francis Bell applied to have three counsel heard for the appellants, saying that the Solicitor-General Mr Adams were not going to cover the same ground. The court granted the request. Sir Francis Bell said that the Crown’s argument was that such a combination as had been was ipso facto an offence under section five of the Commercial Trusts Act, even if there was no breach of sections three and four. Under the terms of the agreement the millowners sold the output to the Distributors, Ltd., at a price which that company fixed. It was also appointed by the agreement a del credere agent. Such _ agency covered not only what the millowners manufactured, but also what they imported into New Zealand. (Sir Francis Bell here read the agreement between Distributors, Ltd., and the various millowners, also Mr Myers’ address to the New Zealand Flourmillers’ Committee on June 21, 1922.) The Government had to have regard to the price of bread when it encouraged farmers to grow wheat. It was ridiculous to assume that the fixing of the price of wheat bv the Distributors, Ltd., had any other object than giving a profit for the miller. The case is proceeding.

Under the Judicature Act of 1913 the Court of Appeal is divided into two divisions, each of which may «it and exercise its' jurisdiction iseparately. However, it is provided that on the certificate of the Chief Justice and one other Judge when any application or otihefl proceeding is of special difficulty or importance -all the Judges of both divisions may isit. together. In -this case the Attorney-General has lodged an a-ppeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Sim, and on his application the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice: Reed have certified that the motion .is of special importance, thus calling- foil the joint attention of both divisions. The only Judges who will not be present -at the -hearing on Monday will be Mr. , T --rt Adams, who is indisposed, and 1 Mr. Justice Stringer, who is absent from the Dominion.