DISTRIBUTORS, LTD.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 23 July 1925, Page 8

DISTRIBUTORS, LTD.

CHARGES UNDER TRUSTS ACT

By Telegraph—l’ress Association

AVELLINGTON, July 22

Both divisions of tlio Appeal Couri were again engaged m hearing an ap-

peal in the case under tlie uommereial Trusts Act against tlie Urown Milling Company, Ltu., of Dunedin; Fleming and Co", Ltd., of Invercargill; lno Atlas Roller Flour and Oatmeal Mills (Evans and Co.), of Timaru; AVooct Brothers, Ltd., of Christchurch; and Distributors, Lid., of Christchurch. Tlie offence alleged is:—That respondents conspired together to monopolise wholly or partially the supply or Hour, bran and pollard in New Zealand, and to control its price and supply, such monopoly or control being ox a nature contrary to the public interest. Mr Fair, K.C., continued the argument for the Crown, and said the lormation of Distributors, Ltd., followed price-cutting indulged m by some millers, and was intended to prevent a reduction of price, other millers fearing that the whole milling business would become unprofitable. Mr Justice Reed asked: How is the quality of flour affected ? Mr Fair: My point is that bakers say that if they, all get the same quality of flour and there is competition, prices will be less.

Mr Skerrett: The evidence is that under free competition the cutting of bread prices by bakers would result in the bakers leaving out of the bread improvers such as milk, malt extracts, and syrups, givjng the public a loar of flour and water.

Mr Fair: We may say that under free competition tlie quality of bread would be improved. Bakers would bo out to make better bread than their competitors. It is suggested that the combine w r as beneficial to wheat-grow-ers. There is nothing in the documents to show this. The monopoly was prepared to pay £ISOO per annum to keep a mill closed. This was a mill belonging to.AVilkie and Co., of Mosgiol, who refused to join the combine unless given an output considerably in excess of their three years’ previous average. In opening for the defence, Mr C. P. Skerrett said lie proposed to summarise the characteristics of the three industries —wheat-growing, flour-mill-ing, and bailing. A second’ topic would be the inter-related industries position from 1917 to 1922, particularly in-

stancing Government intervention; a third topic would be a discussion of the law, upon which tjie defence is violently opposed; fouiflily, whether the monopoly was (a) contrary to publio policy; (b) contrary to public interest; and fifthly and lastly, by submission as to the general facts relating to inconvenience. His first observation was

that it was tlio fixed policy of New Zealand statesmen- to encourage wheatgrowing here. Sir Robert Stout: You could say that of any primary products. Mr "Skerrett: Especially wheat-grow-ing. This desideratium is apart from war conditions, and existed before the war period of 1914. New Zealand is pot bv nature a wheat-growing country. Only three per cent, of wheat is grown in the North Island, so 97 per cent, is grown in the South Island, and in a comparatively small area. Apart from the embargo the price of wheat is determined by world parity, plus freight and duty. Thero is in modern years a temptation on the part of the fanners to go in for woolgrowing in place of wheat. Mr Leadley points out that if a combine had not been formed the farmer would turn to other industries. The Court should accept the view that it is an economical necessity that wheat-grow-ing should he encouraged. The case stands part heard