Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FINED £IOOO.

THE SUGAR RING. ADJUDGED AXILLEGAL TRUST. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, December 20. Sir R. Stout delivered his reserved judgment in the sugar case of The King v The Merchants' Association. He found:—(l) That the discount scales of the Colonial Sugar Company on numbers 2 and 3 were made to prevent competition in the sale and disposal of sugar; (2) that they were made to enable a commercial trust or association with a group of buyers, to get control of the distribution of sugar; (.1) that they were made so as to prevent Fairbairn, Wright and Co. or other persons from purchasing sugar, and giving certain discounts to purchasers from them; (4) that defendants were acting in consort or conspiring together to get this control; (o) that they were made so as to ensure a profit that might otherwise not have gone to members of the trust goirig to members of the trust. In the course of his judgment Sir R. Stout said that in his opinion the court must hold that the keeping up of the price of goods or not reducing them, when they could be reduced if there were free competition, was contrary to the public interest. To say that a difference of 4or 4 1 /> per cent, on goods would not affect prices was not proved. The only evidence on the subject was that it would affect prices to the consumer. As defendants called no evidence to cohtradict the statements of Fairbairn, the court must assume that no such evidence could have been called. His Honor held that the Australian coal vend ease was not a parallel with the case under review. If the Sugar Company carried out or arranged to carry out schemes that the statute declared to be offences, such schemes must be deemed to he contrary to the public interest. What was, then, the aim of the defendants in altering scales? In his opinion there could be only one answer: it was to prevent persons who were not members of the commercial trust getting goods at the same price as persons who were members of the commercial trust. It was to arrange a discount for fine class and not for another class; to arrange a discount for the class that would obey the commercial trust and give another discount to* a class that would not obey the commercial trust. Such an action was distinctly prohibited by section 3 of the Act. He found all the defendants guilty of the offences charged in paragraph 37 of the statement of claim in the first action, being an offence under section 5 of the Act. The Sugar Company Vias guilty under section 3 in giving discounts to Levin and Co. The defendants other than the Sugar Company were guilty of an offence under section 7of the Act. As to the second action, he found that Levin and Co. were not principals in the transaction of giving discounts, and not agents of the Sugar Company. Each defendant was fined an aggregate of £IOOO in the first action, with costs.

After judgment had "been delivered, Mr. Skerrett, for the Merchants' Association, asked if judgment was for the defendant in the first action* in respect to those charges under section 4.

His Honor:' I have picked out the section. I consider judgment should be given for the Crown. Mr. Skerrett: And those you have not mentioned? You do not consider they have been proved? His Honor: That is so.

In answer to the Attorney-General, his Honor said that he would allow fifteen guineas costs in respect to the interlocutory proceedings. Mr. Skerrett: I apply for a stay of proceedings, pending the determination of the appeal. The Crown is willing to consent on the understanding that security be found for the amount of the judgment and costs by January 22; the appellants to undertake to proceed with the appeal at the April sittings of the Court of Appeal. A stay of proceedings was granted on these terms.

Mr. Hcrdman: We claimed an injunction. Your Honor did not mention it.

His Honor: That is a matter you can move for. if you wish. I think it is a matter there is no need for. I will reserve the question of an injunction, and you can make application.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19121221.2.38

Bibliographic details

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 184, 21 December 1912, Page 5

Word Count
717

FINED £1000. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 184, 21 December 1912, Page 5

FINED £1000. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 184, 21 December 1912, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert