SUPPLY OF FLOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 July 1925, Page 9

SUPPLY OF FLOUR.

A MONOPOLY ALLEGED. CASE AGAINST DISTRIBUTORS. HEARING IN APPEAL COURT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Before both divisions of the Appeal Court the hearing was continued to-day of the appeal in the flourmilling case heard in Dunedin, in which penalties are sought for alleged breaches of the Commercial Trusts Aet, 1910 (relating tomonopolies), by the Crown v. The Milling Company, Limited, of Dunedin, flourmiliers, Fleming and Company, Ltd., the Invercargill flourmiliers, the Atlas Roller Flour and Oatmeal Mills (Evans and Company), The Timaru flourmiliers, Wood Brothers, Limited, the Christchurch Flourmillers and Distributors, Ltd., of Christchurch, the flourmillers’ ■gents of which companies are responleuts in the present proceedings. “The offence alleged was that respondents had conspired together to monopolise wholly or partially the supply of flour, bran and pollard in New Zealand, and to control its price and supply, such monopoly of control being of a nature contrary’ to the provisions of the Aet.

Sir Francis Bell, resuming argument, said the scheme could not be upheld on the ground that it was consonant with the Government policy. The Government might have assented to the agreement and, even if it did, that could not affect the question of construction. Mr. MacDonald’s view of the Government policy was wrong. Mr. Sterrett, for respondents, said what they relied upon in the lower court was that the acts and actions of the Government in regard to the control of the wheat supply encouraged and made possible and desirable just such form of control as Distributors, Ltd., exercised. Sir Francis Bell contended that all the court had to consider was the nature of the monopoly and its effect upon the public interest. The construction placed by Sir William Sim on the statute was too narrow; it was intended to prohibit all dealing* with goods. Sir Francis Bell, continuing, said that in the sugar case Levin and Co., Ltd., occupied a position similar to that of Distributors Limited. It was the agent for the distribution of goods. The Court need not wait for actual harm to ensue before deciding that a conspiracy or a monopoly was illegal. Mr. Fair said the Crown contended that Distributors Limited prevented bakers in Southland and Dunedin obtaining the flour they desired and prevented a reduction in the cost of flour and consequently of bread; also that the agreement was a breach of the Act, and being illegal was contrary to the publio interest. Distributors Limited could have obtained flour from other mills to supply the bakers’ demands. Laurenson, who was one of the strongfist opponents of the monopoly, was unable to obtain Oamaru flour and had to rely on the local article. He said bakers were prevented from going to the Northern Mills, where they could get good flour. On November 30, 1923 the flour stocks in New Zealand totalled 32,000 tons. That was sufficient to carry on till February, when the new erop was available. Distributors Limited did not have to bother to remedy defects in flour, knowing that their customers must take it. For five months Flemings were turning out an inferior flour, yet the clause providing for a reduction in price was not put Into operation. Instead of the operation of Distributors Limited securing economy they had led to an increase in the cost of distribution and dearer flour. The hearing has not finished.