DECISION RESERVED

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 16 August 1934, Page 5

DECISION RESERVED

TREATMENT OF BOMDHCXLDEIRS. TEXTILES PROBLEM. (United Pres 3 Association— By Electric Telegraph » Copyright.) LONDON, Aug. 15. “The United Australia Party stands an excellent chance of re-election,” says the Financial News in commenting on ..iithe election addresses given by Mr J. A. Lyons, Prime Minister of Australia, and Hr Earle Page, leader of the Country Party. “Mr Lyons’ speech is realistic. 'British merchant bondholders may look forward to the maintenance of exchange • stability if he is returned to office.

“The British" exporter has no more hope from JDtr Page than from Mr liVOns. Circumstances are outsKle the control of either. MrLyons recognises this while Dr Page does not.” “We are now to witness the absurd spectacle of Australia manufacturing its own textiles at a high cost rather than buying cheaply from Britain, while Britain is producing meat at a high cost instead of buying cheaply from Australia,” says the “Daily Herald.” “This is just oraxv devotion to an impoverishing notion of national self-sufficiency.”

CLAIM FOR £SO DAMAGES

PETROL RE-SELLER ’SS ACTION

ll,y TeV’grapft Fr?ss Association.) WELLINGTON. Aug. 15. At the conclusion of the case for the defence the magistrate, Mr E. Page, reserved his decision in an action brought by James Leach, a petrol station proprietor, against the members of the Wellington Petrol Resellers’ Association in the Magistrate’s Court. The defendants, from whom £SO was claimed for alleged victimisation, were Todd Motors, Petrol Supplies, Ltd., De Luxe Service Station, K. Reid and AY. M. King. * seriee station proprietors. Wiliam King, president of the Resellers’ Association, under cross-exam-ination agreed that Leach gave a complete service to the motoring public. The magistrate: Why did you try to block Leach from obtaining supr plie-». King: He was opening a service station with several pumps, and ut‘ did not want existing resellers in jnfed. The magistrate: It was because you did not want a rival,, and not because they were price-cutting. King said that representations to the oil companies were not directed against Leach personally. It was a matter of general policy on the part of the resellers’ association with regard to Leach. Evidence was given with relation to price-cutting and reference was made to watching with a view to finding out that Leach was putting in his.tanks Addressing the Court at .the close of the evidence, counsel lor the defendants, Mr Taylor, submitted that the whole of the defendants’ activities was within the law, and there was no question of a boycott. There was no attempt to drive Coach out of business. Whatever was done was merely to safeguard the interests of resellers in the city, and the only pressure brought on Leach was to prevent him selling at an uneconomic price. Counsel for Leach, Mr Watterson, asked the- Court to keep in view the fact that Leach was already in business at the time the trouble arose. He contended that the object of the stopping of the sources of supply was to put Leach out of business. The maintaining of prices was only a veil.