APPEAL COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 23 July 1925, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

FLOUR M ILLIN G CASE. (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, July 22. Before the Appeal Court the hearing was continued to-day of the appeal in the flourmilling case. Mr Fair continued the argument for the Crown. He contended that under free competition the quality of bread would be improved. The monopoly was prepared to pav £ISOO per annum to keep Wilkie’s 'mill closed at Mosgiel when the proprietors refused to join the combine unless given an output considerably above the average of their trade during the previous three years. Ireland had given evidence that his firm had lost money on flour shipped, but subsequently admitted that ho had not suffered any trading losses. M r Adams, continuing for the Crown, disputed respondents’ argument that the operations of .Distributors Limited were analogous to Government control. They only lixed prices and regulated tlie outnut of flour, which was a very different thing from the rationing of wheat bv the Government.

Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., opening for the respondents, said lie proposed to summarise tlio characteristics of the three industries—wheat growing, tloiir milliug and baking. Then lie would discuss the position of inter-related industries from 11)17 to 1922, with particular reference to Government intervenlion. He would also touch on the question whether a monopoly was (a) contrary to public policy and (b) contrary to public, interest- because it might have operated in breach of section 3. Mr Skerrett said it was a fixed policy of New Zealand statesmen to encourage wheat growing, quite apart from war conditions, but latterly there had been a strong tendency among farmers to grow wool instead. 'l'lie hearing has not finished.