SUPFLY OF FLOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 December 1924, Page 8

SUPFLY OF FLOUR.

A MONOPOLY ALLEGED. CASE FOR CRtWVN FAILS. JUDGMENT FOR COMPANIES. By Telegraph—Press Association. Dunedin, Last Night. Judgment for the defendants was delivered to-day by His Honour Sir William Sim in the case in which the Crown claimed a penalty of £5OO from the Crown Milling Company, Dunedin, Fleming and Company, Invercargill, Atlas Roller Flour and Oatmeal Mills, Timaru, Wood Bros., Christchurch, and Distributors, Ltd., Christchurch. The Crown also sought an injunction against the first four companies prohibiting the continuance of the employment of Distributors, Limited, as the sole selling agent for flour, bran, and pollard, and from entering into a similar agreement in the future. A further injunction was asked against Distributors, Limited, prohibiting that company from continuing to act as sole selling agent. The judgment said it was clear that the effect of the combination created by the agreement had been to partially monopolise the flour supply of part of New Zealand and control the supply. The price was the only question which could be of a nature contrary to the public interest, and in the present case this, it was contended, must be held to be contrary to such interest.

The first question was whether the agreement offended against t'he provision of Section 3, which enacted that every person commits an offence who either as principal or agent in respect of dealing in any goods, gives, offers or agrees to give, any other person any rebate, refund, etc., on the express or implied condition that the latter person will act as specified in the subclauses.

It was contended for the defence that the words “in respect of dealing in any goods,” do not include an agreement appointing an agent for t'he sale of goods. It was clear that the relation created by the agreement was that of principal agents dealing in goods. It was c.\ tainly not a phrase that would ordinarily 'be used to describe the employment of an agent. The expression as used in Section 3 should be construed as not including such contract, unless the context indicates such intention. His Honour thought it did not, but on the contrary supported the view that the section was inended to apply only to contracts for the sale or supply of goods. His Honour traversed tne coal vend case, which had been used by the Crown, indicating his opinion that the Australian Court of judgment could not be treated as an authority for saying that an agreement, such as the vend agreement. would offend against Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, not being an agreement for dealing in goods within the meaning of the section.

After reviewing the several complaints on which the Crown based its allegation of a combine contrary to public interests. His Honour concluded: “In view of the satisfaction of bakers generally with the operations of the company. it is reasonable to conclude that the discontent in Dunedin and Southland is not necessarily the result of the scheme, but is due to accidental causes, which were only temporary. That discontent. I conclude, was largely responsible for the present action, but does not justify the court in holding a monopoly contrary to the public interest, nor did the other grounds put forward by the Crown show it to b® against public interest.*'’ Judgment was therefore given for th® defendants with costs. In view of the fact that the interest of all defendants was identical, only one. set of costs was allowed.