TRUST ALLEGED.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8187, 31 July 1912, Page 1

TRUST ALLEGED.

SUGAR COMPANY CASE. DECISION RESERVED. TJio hearing was concluded ycstcr4 a y of the interlocutory motions fbr ‘production and discovery brought on behalf of the Crown against the Morchants’ Association. His Honor Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice) was on tho bench. In February last information was laid agijnst the Colonial Sugar Refining Company charging it with a breach of tho New Zealand Commercial Trusts Act in that it had given preferential terms to a group of merchants and that a table of discounts was in existence under which only purchasers of unitsuHlly largo quantities of sugar could obtain benefit. Tho Merchants’ Association of New Zealand was joined with tho Sugar Company as defendant. In tho association there aro over fifty members, but as a test of the individual position of these members the Crown selected of their number leading Wellington wholesalers—Levin and Co., TV. M. Bannatyno and Co., and Joseph Nathan and Co.—for prosecution.

Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr H. H. Ostler, appeared for the Crown, Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr C. H. Treadwell, for tho Merchants’ Association, and Mr M. Myers, . with him Mr T. NeaVe, for Lovin and Co.

Tho hearing was commenced on Saturday when Sir John Findlay, Mr Skerrett ,and Mr Treadwell addressed the court.

Upon the resumption of the hearing yesterday Mr Myers continued the argument. Ho said his clients were not concerned with the question of production, hub they were concerned with the general interpretation of section 15 of the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910. They might be affected by that at any time. In regard to Sir John Finolay’s contention that section 15 gave the court power to order the production asked for in the motion, Mr Myers submitted that if tho Legislature had intended to make such' a drastic provision it would have done so in plain language. The reference, in section 15, to interrogatory and discovery was applicable only to a party to the-action. A party who was not a party to tho action could not bo interrogated until the trial. There was no machinery to do it. He supported tho view advanced by Mr Skerrett on Saturday. With regard to tho request for discovery in the case of Levin and. Co.’s letters, Mr Myers said lie proposed to make sonic observations which would show the other-side the futility of enforcing this discovery. The . letters were from Mr Mowbray, but Levin and Co. knew nothing of them. It was true that Mr Mowbray happened to be a director of Levin and Co., but tho company could not bo held responsible for all that its directors did. The Crown already had tho letters from tho other side, and it was nothing less , than oppression to attempt to enforce further discovery. There was no reason why these particular letters should not have been prpduced with the others, but they were not in tho possession of tho con\any. Sir John Findlay said such proceedings as the present were not unusual. Similar proceedings had been taken in Australia, while in our own Arbitra tion Act there was provision for even more drastio procedure. Tho Chief Justice said thdre was an analogy in the Bankruptcy Act which gave tho Official Assignee power to summon any person before him for examination.

Sir John Findlay said there were also illustrations in Magistrate’s Court practice. - When Mr Skerretl spoke ot the Spanish Inquisition ho apparently forgot that years ago we had' placed upon our books a, much more drastic statute than the one to which ho then referred. The Crown had to prove a conspiracy against the public interest. In framing the Act the Legislature had recognised that unless the widest reach was given to the arm of the court to get information from the other side it would be impossible to get tronf of any monopoly. Unless tbo widest interpretation was given the Act would be reduced to a uselesspiece of legislation. Everything that would throw any light upon the case was, prima facie, subject to inspection The rights of the people as a whole to be protected against monopolistic enterprise were greater than the rights of tho merchant to keep his books private. Decision was reserved.