Alleged Flour Combine

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XV, Issue 193, 20 July 1925, Page 6

Alleged Flour Combine

INCORPORATED DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED. CROWN’S APPEAL AGAINST DECISION. (Per Press Association). Wellington, July 20. Both divisions of the Appeal Court are engaged in hearing an appeal in the Hour milling case, heard at Dunedin, in which penalties were sought for alleged breaches of the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910 (relating to monopolies) from the Crown Milling Company Limited, of Dunedin, flourmillers; Fleming and Company, Limited, of Invercargill, flourmillers; Atlas Roller Flour and Oatmeal Mills (Evans and Company) of Timaru. flourmillers; Wood Bros. Limited, of Christchurch, flourmillers; and Distributors Ltd., of Christchurch, flourmillers’ agents, which companies are the respondents in the present proceedings. The case is in line with the sugar case of 1912, the most important proceeding heard in New Zealand 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 of control being of a nature contrary to the public interests. It was alleged that- control was exercised by the incorporation, in October, 1923, of Distributors Limited, for the purixise of actinjr 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. I he Crown contended that incorporated Distributors Limited resulted in many bakers being unable to obtain the brands of flour ordered, and only getting an inferior article. Mr. Justice Sim found in favour of respondents, and the Crown is now appealing against that decision. THE CROWN’S ARGUMENT. Wellington, July 20. Sir Francis Bell applied to have three vounsel heard for appellants, saying that the Solicitor-General and Mr Justice Adams were not going to cover thi> same ground. The Court granted the

Sir Francis Bell said that the Crown r argument was that such combination, as had been created, was, ipso facto, an offence under section 5 of the Commercial 'l’rusts Act, even if there was breach of sections 3 and 4. Under the. terms of the agreement a mill-owne? sold his output to Distributors Ltd., at ihe price which that company fixed. It whs also appointed, by agreement, a det credere agent. The agency covered not only what the mill-owners manufactured, but also what they imported into New Zealand. Sir Francis here read the agreement, between Distributors Ltd ami various mill-owners, also Air Myers’s address to the New Zealand flour-millers committee on June 21, 1922. Continuing Sir Francis said the Government had to have regard to the price of bread whe» it encouraged farmers to grow wheat. It was ridiculous to assume that the fixing of the price of wheat by the Distributors Ltd. had any other object than the gaining of profit for the miller. The case is likely to last a week. Under the Judicature Act of 1913 the Court of Appeal is divided into two divisions, each of which may sit and exercise its jurisdiction separately. However, it is provided that on the certificate of the Chief Justice and one other Judge, that when any application or other proceeding is of special difficulty or importance, all the Judges of both divisions may sit together. In this case the Attorney-General lias lodged an appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Sim. amd on his application the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Reed have certified that the motion is of special importance, thus calling for the joint attention of both divisions. The only Judges who are not present at the hearing to-day are Mr. Justice Adams, who is indisposed, and Mr. Justice Stringer, who is absent from the Dominion.