TRUST ACT AGAIN.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1527, 24 August 1912, Page 7

TRUST ACT AGAIN.

PAUSE OR NOT? MERCHANTS WISH TO APPEALAGAINST "PRODUCTION." CROWN DESIRES TO GO RIGHT ON, Stay of proceedings and stay, of execution of a writ of discovery has been asked for by ' defendants in .the case of tho King v. the Merchants' Association. The action was set down for hearing at the present .civil sessions, but the defendants desire that it should stand over pending their appeal against a decision on an interlocutory matter. The application for the stay came up yesterday before Mr. Justioe Sim in Chambers. Mr. C. 1?. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. C. H. Tread well and Mr. J. A. Tripe, appeared for. the Merchants' Association, who moved for the order, while Mr. 11, Myers, with him Mr. T. Noave, appeared for Levin and Co., who supported the motion. The Crown raised opposition, the Solicitor-General (Mr. J'. W. Salmond) appearing with Sir John Findlay, K.C. WhV There Should Ba a Stay of * ' ' Proceedings. Mr, Skerrett. briefly related what had led to the present, motion. The proseeu? tion had been brought for various alleged breaches of [the Commercial Trusts Act, 1310, the claim'referring to sugar only, . The charge against the Merchants' Assor elation was o,ne of aiding add abetting in tha, commission of certain offences under the Act. There was another charge of conspiring to | monopolise or control the supply and price of sugar. Upon an o)(ler for discovery, the ' Merchants' Association produced their minute book and all letters reluting to transactions in sugar; but sealed up' the parts of the min te book and' the portions of the letr tors dealing with articles other than sugar. Subsequently, tho. Chief Justjco ordgred them" to prcdue'e" the" whole of the iiiiuiitu . book and the' correspondence, whether rj* . lating to sugar or not. Tjijq order wis made on ths grounds (1) that the eyitU ence might be relevant under .the statute for the'purpose of determining, whether the alleged conspiracy created a nionopojy; and (2): that the Judge at the trial uiig-lit admit'_ this , evidence mider the general discretion given by the' Act. The Chief Justice, had suggested also that Section 15, giving, general discretion, had aa application before the trial, Mr. Skerrett then proceeded' to submit that there was reasonable ground for appeal. ' It would,' he stated,' be urged on the Court of. Appeal t!wt tljese document? and papers in no way ire!uted to the 'present action. The Courts had always been careful to maintain the sacredness of private rights. Discovery in this case meant ths discovery of every act of business done by the Merchants' • Association since the Sassing' of the Act dt>wn to the present ay, rtlat'ng to every class of goods without limitation., In support of' the motim to stay proceedings, it could reasonably be oontended,-and, was iontendcd-r That the appeal was a reasonable one. That it was commenced with a obtaining a'judgment of the Court of Appeal upon the question of .production/and without any indirect or improper motive. TVhiie he (Mr.'Skerrett) ' did not say that this discovery would lead to further prosecutions, ■ tho possibility of it doing §o was a very'grave , reason why the Merchants' Association should have tha right of appeal. -~,,••, . Mr. Myers also addressed the Court in support (il the- motion to stay proceedings. •Ha stated-: that. the-, point, was. gf -:.very great moment to'his; clients (levin and Co.). In the event of ' the order not being made, - the consequences imgrht be very Beriou3-' to a- niinjber of business men In respeot-of matters not involved in this action.-' : '. •' ' ' ' Why the Crown Desires to Go On. Th'e Solicitor-General then spoke on the other side. He'argued that it was not enough for the defendants to come before the ; Court and aver that their, appeal would be rendered nugatory or that they would suffer injury if the stay of execu- ; tion were. not grafted. The .Court had \to consider the rights of the plaintiff. It might, in fact, be that a stay of proceedings would paralyse tho force of justice. Defendants had really opposed the production of the minute book, not because the mattqrs mentioned therein were outside the Commercial Trusts Act, but because thpso matters were within tlie. Aqt. "The irreparable injury," .men? tioned lin the affidavit objecting to the production, was the discovery of evidence of other offences committed under the Act.' But because the association had committed other ounces, that was no reason why -the .prosecution should not go on, in this case. If the result qf those proceedings was to show that the association had .committed other offences, so much the worse for the association. There was, the Solicitor-General submitted, no reasonable, ground for this appeal. He did not' wish to say so in any offensive manner, but he might express the suspicion that a desire for delay—a desire to burl: the effectiveness of these proceedings—was a ground of the application. If the other side had been prepared to make an affidavit that there was nothing in the minute book relating to articles mentioned in the schedule of the Act, the position might bo different, but no such affidavit had been made. Every-argument for a stay of proceedings to permit; of an appsal to the Court rtr Appeal might be used again in support of a stay to permit of an nppeal to the Privy Council. There was no difference in principle. Sir John Findlay also addressed the Conrt, and supported the Solicitor-Gene-'ral'a argument. Ho'quotcd authorities on tho question. After Mr. Skerrett had replied, his Honour reserved decision. An order for the furnishing of further particulars as,ketl for by the Merchants' Association,. was granted by consent. 1 Afterwards—Separate Trials? Mr. Myera then moved for severance at the trial. He submitted that evidence, which was relevant a»i\iiist one defendant, would not be relevant against others, and, therefore, there should be senarate trials. The Solicitor-General opposed this motion also. . ' • His Honour intimated that he would take time to consider his decision.