FLOURMILLERS’ CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19365, 23 July 1925, Page 5

FLOURMILLERS’ CASE

APPEAL COURT HEARING (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 21 Tn the Appeal Court in the flourmib lers’ case. Mr Fair continued his argument for the Crown. He said the formation of the Distributors’ Ltd., followed the price cutting indulged in by some millers, and was intended to prevent the reduction of the price, other millers fearing the whole milling business would become unprofitable. Continuing his argument, Mr. Fair contended that by wider and free competition the quality of broad would bo improved. The monopoly was prepared to pav £l5OO per annum to keep Wilkie’s mill closed at Mosgiel when the proprietors refused to join the combine unless given an output considerably above the average of their trade during the previous three years. Mr. Ireland gave evidence that, his firm lost money on flour shipped, but subsequently admitted he had not suffered any trading losses. Mr. Adams, continuing for the Crown, disputed the respondents’ argument that the Distributors’ operations were analogous to Government control. They only fixed the prices and regulated the output of flour, which was a very different thing from the rationing of wheat by the Government. Mr. Skerrett, opening for respondents, said he proposed to summarize tho characteristics of the three industries —wheat-growing, flour-milling and baking. Then he would discuss the interrelated industries and the position from 1917 to .1922 with particular reference ♦ o Government intervention. Ho would also touch on the question whether the monopoly was (a) contrary to the public policy, (b) contrary to public interest because it might have operated in breach of Section 3. Mr. Skerrett said it was the fixed policy of New Zealand statesmen to encourage wheatgrowing, quite apart from war conditions, but latterly there had been a strong tendency among farmers to grow wool instead.