FRAUDS IN THE FLOUR TRADE. (From the Argus Correspondent.)

Otago Witness, Issue 554, 12 July 1862, Page 2

FRAUDS IN THE FLOUR TRADE. (From the Argus Correspondent.)

Geelong, l'Yitliy, June '20. A singular insianoe of liow necessary it is at times to no abroad ibr news ,il homo has just occurred with v-> in the e*:pnsuie in the South Austuilian llu/i^ier of the 2 c Jth May of a "real fiaud in (l.)uv alleged to have been committed by n whilom respectable Geclong merchant and mi Her. Some weeks ago a rumour w,n current in town that a gentleman holding a high position in the church, and also a magistrate oi the to.vn, had been detected selling Hour male at the Union Mills, hero in Melbourne, under iho brand of a celebrated Adelaide firm, wheieby the price of (ho spurious article was mised to a fictitiou value, and the Uiireha.-ers wee greatly i nnosed upon. The position the accused held induced the majority of the public to think that the affair was a 'wicked lionx, or that some mistake had boon made, and the ni.it tei quietly settled down ; buf, not long after this, there appeared in the Melbourne papers a very short notice of a case tried before the Supreme Court there, headed Dunn v. 13,-ebner, in which it was stated thai a perpetual injunction had been agreed to by the defendant. Tlie whole of the report m this case only occupied so. he five or six lines, and those who h:>d been anxiously waiting for the particulars were not, only disappointed, but arrived at the conclusion that extraor-'ina:y influence lind been brov»iit to bear in certain quarters to get the report of the trial suppressed. Tin? conelurion may have been quite groundless, as, if thejease cime befoie the (.Vnrt in chambers, and the counsel for the defendant .it once agreed to accept the perpetual injunction, the particulars of the cau^e would not transpire publicly, and the press would not lie under the imputation of having strangled the report. From the time of the rcporl of that trial appearing until Wednesday 1-ist, the mailer has iv-in-lined in darkness, except to a few only who know the pirlicnlars of thefriud. The arri.'il of the last bt'tch of Adelaide pipers Inn, however, unveiled the mystery ; and, iv a leading article of the paper previously refer re I to, nil the particular- and the names are given. It is just ]O" c ible that the accvunt of the friud in the lityi^ler may be wrong, or exaggerated ; but as it vouchci for its aicaraey, ha\ing obtained its information from the firm which was defrauded, I cannot be considered to be doing v. rong in giving its statement here, because, as that paper sa;» s, febe'- inteiests of commerce demand an exp)sun. of such cases ; and I aKo tliink the iniere'ts oi society denvind eithvr a full refutation of the oflence by the aceu.-ed, or a siiflieient and ample punishment if they are guilty. No possible good can be dern e 1 from an y further aLle'tipl to suppress the particulars o! this alleged frau I in this community ; and if the accused are in blissful ignorance of what the South Australian papers «ay of tlicm, the sooner they know it the sooner they will have an opportunity of denying the allegation. What the Register sajs, then, is this — That, sometime in Eebririry last, John Dunn and Son. millers, of Mount Barker, Adelaide, received some anonymous letters from Geelong, informing them that a most extenbhe fraud was being perpetrated upon them by a person here, who was grinding inferior Victorian wheat, nnd mixing this with flour ground from California n wheat, branding the bno;s "Dunn and Son, Mount ßarkei Mills, Adelaide," and forwarding the same to his agent hi Melbourne for sale. Mr. Dunn, it is said, acting upon this information, came to Melbourne, and thence to Geelong. At the store of the ngent in Melbourne lie found 500 bags of this spurious flour ; and in Geelong he also found sufficient evidence that a fraud had been perpetrated. On returning to Melbourne, he is said to hu'.c sent a party to the store of the agent there, to purchase a ton of this flour, which he succeeded in doing, and got a receipt for the money, purporting that it was Dunn and Son's flour. The name </f the miller is given as Mr. John Brebner, of the Union Mills, Geelong, and the name of his Melbourne agent as Mi*. James Service. At this stage of the matter, Mr, Dunn it reported to have placed his case, in tho hand-* of his solicitor ; and the result was, as already stated, that Mr. Brebner consented to a perpetual injunction, restraining him nnd his audits fiom doing the like again. But, in the Jleoisier, we arc told, further, that Mr. Brebner consented, not only to pay all the costs of the case, but also all the expenses Mr. Burn had been put to in fei retting out and putting a stop to this who'c-alc fraud. You may icadily conceive with what eagerneps the Register in question is sought for, and the indignation expressed by the readers of the ai ticlc in question. So far as Mr. Sen ice i-> concerned, it seems to be pretty generally the opinion that he is above lending hinv-elf knowingly to such disgraceful conduct as has been here imputed to his principal, Mr. Brebner ; but a feeling of curiosity is expressed to know how it was, when the fraud — if fraud it be — was detected, that he did not stand boldly forward an 1 avow his uneoTtpHcily in the transaction. Those who ])"ofe^s to know his character .seem at a loss to account for his silence on a subject fraught with such vast importance to his reputation as an honest independent merchant. The news has created quite a sensation in commercial circles j'esterday and to-day ; and the " scandal in the church" is another feature addedto the observations made on eommeicial dihonesty. TO Till! EDITOR Or THE AHIUS. Sir, — Referring to the notice ■which appears in your issue of this morning of an article in a recent number of the South Aurtmltnn Register, headed " Frauds in the Flour Trade/ in connexion with winch our naiae is mentioned, we bet; to hard yon a copy of a letter forwarded by us to the editor ot the Itcfjisti'r, by fust mail steamer after our .intention vas directed to the aiticie, and shall thank you to insert the fame in an eaily is^ue of The Argus. Yours truly, JAM"EH SERVICE fc GO. 133 Bourke sbrept, we j t, June 23. P.S. — fciince writing the abive w • iave received from Mr. Brebner a letter to for wind to you, which we enclose hciewith. J. S. & Co.

no interest, directly or indirectly, in the flour, except in regard to the commission of two and a half per cent, for sale, guarantee, and advance. " Now for the mis-statements in your article :: — ■ "1. You say ' Mr. Dunn's first business on arriving in Melbourne, after calling on his a«jont, v. as to proceed to Mr. Service's store, wheie lie found about 500 bags of Hour, Luviug hit, brand on, piled up In the warehouse.'

" Now, the flour was never in our store ;il all. It was carted (iii-oi'L irimi the uhaif into Tho,. Fulton's stores, Flindoii-street, and tal.eu delivery therefrom hv I'ie l-ineis. as sjhl, a<i 1 \'"iievci si>\ r a b;«; of it till after we received a letter on the subject from Mr. Dunn's lawyer. "'2. You siy. a^ain, ' Mr. Dann then rit-inied immediately to 3lclljoninc, and \rilh the a^Ktanu' of an tf;ent, was cimblul to purchase n tin at Mr. ScivicoS store. This sale on the part nf (he yon ior was accompanied by a leoeipl to the oitect that the (lour vas Dunn and Sou's, at Adolaido.' " What i-> meant liy Me. Dunn hoins; ' enabled ' to puidias?, is hardly comprehensible, ina->nnich as we ve-re h'l.'ujule -^elleisof the flour, and uou'd hay; br en ;j;la Ito have quitted the entire p neel, mm h e» a ton.

" The 'receipt' allude I to wa-. i-imply our usual invoice — '• • Mcs,is. . " ' I3ot. of .L'inei Seivico and Co. " ' 1 ton Adelaide Flour, Dunn and Sons.'

" Ihe dchcri^Hou liein^ an uuct cjpy of con si','!ior'.s invoice to us— tliat hems' our only means ol |jici,\iu>; the brand, we never huhm' seen it on tiie bay.--, as we luse alrea'ly sUted, up to this time.

" :i. It is not true that an injunction was either applied for or » ran tod against us as Mr. 13 •ebner's an-i'iit.-; nor cli'ft'.v ever pay, or cniisint to pay, or oii'ci- to pay, one shill;n<r by way of either co-ts or coinpiomisu in the maiter. Me-sr.i. Klinueii.ler aad (Jo. wrote us a letter in the fns-t in-tanuo, chnre.iup; iii with bijin^ privy to tiie fraud. Tiiis we placed in the bauds of our suiicito p *, who explained to Messrs. K'i i«ciu!er our position in the matter, and required tbf-i.i to withdraw their imputations, which tiny subsequently (lni, and no proci ediiig-i of any kind were ever taken :tL'iin<-fc us.

"4. You siy— ' Mr. Service was doiirnii! tliat the affair sl^uli! b"- settled quietly, and bep^'-d Mr. Dunn to s ij > > jest hi- own tevns ofeoinpiomke.'

"Tins is a m-y unf.iii 1 coSouring of the truth. The lac!'-, are t'ir '3 : Mr. Dunn, oiW 1 \i-iting ilclbournc, left for >S\ duey, an t it w as duriim liis ab^eiicc there tliat we received the letter fro T v ."\Lc>,is. KliuCT I ml.'r and (Jo. As soon as we fuinid chat we bad been unwittingly pavt'u-s to a tVunl on Mr. Diuin, we were anxious, to c\p!ain our position to that gentl"m. r ui; and to render ban opch f-ati-f iction as we could, by a full explanation, and by jiivim; him the naaic of our princnnl. '• We th n-i f.ire U>rt a mfi-a-i: at li".s ngonts i;\ .Mflbourue that we should lik ■ to ■•cc Lrn ou iio rc'aini fio'u Sydney. ]\lr. Dunn ucuuidiimly caile lat our ofHcc, when we st.ite.l the f.icts to him. We aNo sim-^ steil the piojiruty of iiis sjcinjj; jlr. Bi\huer pi'i-onally, witli a view to such an arraiig'cmciit as wo^ild iic s.Hiilactoiy, and an ij.p.jint'iient was liien made for un interview littuccn Mi. Dunu and Mr. lircbnor, whijh accouliii^ly took place the follov.'in^ day at our olriec. Ov( rUires were llun m ula by Jh 1 . JJrebufT for an arran-i. >m ut, \\hieh. howo'icr. cam^ to iiutiiiriL.*. We fiiinklv a lniii we cndc.ivouied to

fac.lit- I tc a private settlement, as we wire ,i>b imeil to

lie iiii\'od u k ) wiih >-acli a uutt<r, evca inuircctlv ; but i'.Mn bi^iiiuiiisi to end we uevu', either to Mr. Dunn or Messrs. Kiin_,en Icr, or any one. else, made any oifer of couiprounsc on our own behalf.

''We have ueen induced to make the ibr"i>ohi^ explanations, not for biu-mes; rt'ii'-ons, \v cause we have no tr 'inactions of any kind wortn mentioninu v>itb South Au^tvarnn firnio. but biiuply from a desire to free ouisehes IVoni these the {ir.it liujMilution^ that hii»e e\er been cut o i our fu'in ctuiing die nine jeais we have Ikcu in bu^i;ic v s iv Jleiuourne. •' We are, Sir, \our obedient ferv.mts, (.Siuucd) "Jajils Seiivici: and Co. " ilelbourue 1 , June 18."