DRIED FRUITS CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22583, 23 November 1936, Page 10

DRIED FRUITS CASE

COMMONWEALTH SUED ALLEGATIONS BY GROWER MELBOURNE, Nov. 21 Mr. Frederick Alexander James, of Adelaide, to-day took out a High Court writ against the Commonwealth of Australia claiming unspecified damages for alleged wrongful conversion and seizure of his dried l'ruits. Mr. James alleges that tlio Commonwealth, by its seizures, prevented him from carrying on his lawful business. Mr. James was responsible for taking the case to the Privy Council, tho decision of which upset the Commonwealth laws regarding the marketing of dried fruits. • 11 ' ■ " ■ ■ The litigation in the case referred to in the cablegram originally began in 1928, when the Commonwealth Government seized a largo consignment of fruit from Frederick Alexander James, of Herri, South Australia. James in turn claimed £35,000 damages. The litigation ih Australia finally ended in tho High Court, which hold that the Commonwealth Government < was not bound by section 92 of the Constitution, which provides for free inter-State trado. James finally appealed to tho Privy Council, which upheld his appeal on July 17. The appellant challenged the right of tho Commonwealth Government to regulate tho dried fruits trade between thn State on tho quota system, which compels growers to send a proportion of their produce to less lucrative markets overseas, thereby retaining a certain price level locally. The Privy Council was' nsked whether the High l/'ourt of Australia was in error in giving judgment for tho Government. Mr. Jamow stated on September ,50 that he intended to claim £25,000 damlgcs from tho Federal Government