STAY GRANTED

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1529, 27 August 1912, Page 2

STAY GRANTED

IN TKE ANTI-TRUST CASE'

MAIN TRIAL TO WAIT,

PENDING DECISION OF APPEAL.

Defendants' application for a stay of proceedings has becu granted in Uie ea<-o of the Kins v. the Merchants' Association and others. This was the effect of a reserved decision delivered in Chambers in the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon by Mr. Juslico Sim. The. action had been set down for heariiifr at the present civil sessions, but the defendants desired that it should stand over pending their appeal again=t a decision on an interlocutory matter. Ba6k History of the Case. The back history of the case is briefly as follow?:—In February last the Colonial Sugar Refining Company was proceeded against for various alleged breaches of tho Commercial Trusts Act, 1910. The Merchants' Association of Kew Zealand was joined as a defendant, and, as a test of tho individual liability of members of that association, tho Crown selected a number Of leading wholesale firms in Wellington. Tho statement of claim referred to sugar only. The charge against the Merchants' Association was one of aiding and abetting in the commission of certain offences under tho Act. There was another chargo of conspiring to monqpoliso or control the supply and price of sugar. Upon an order for discovery, tho Merchants' Association produced their minute book and all letters relating to transactions in sugar, but sealed up the parts of tho minute book and the portions of the letters dealing with articles other than sugar. Subsequently the Chief Justice ordered them to produce the whole of the minute book and the correspondence, whether re- ' lating to sugar or not. This order was made on the grounds (1) that tho evidence might be relevant .under the statute for the purpose of determining whether the alleged conspiracy created a monoply; and (2) that the Judse of the trial might admit this evidence under the general discretion given by the Act. The Chief Justice, had suggested also that Section 15, giving general discretion, had an application beforo tho trial. Why Stay of Proceedings Was Asked. From this decision the defendants gave notice of appeal, and asked for a stay of proceedings and stay of execution of the writ of discovery until after the appeal had.been heard. Mr. C. P. Starrer!, K.C., with him Mr. C. H. Treadwell and Mr. J. A. Tripe, appeared- for tho Merchants' Association, who moved for the stay of proceedings, while Mr. M. Myers, with him Mr. T. Neave, appeared for Levin and Co., who supported the motion. Tho Crown raised opposition, the SolicitorGeneral (Mr. J. W. Salmond) appearing with Sir John Findlay, K.C. In support of the motion to stay proceedings, it was contended— That the appeal was a reasonable one. That it was commenced with a view to obtaining judgment of the Court of Appeal upon the question of production, and without any indirect or improper motive. Why the Crown Opposed It. Tho Crown expressed tho suspicion that a desire for delay—a desire to burk tho effectiveness of these proceedings—was a ground of tho application. Every argument for a stay of nroceedings to permit of an appeal to tho Court of Appeal might (it was contended) bo used again in support of a stay to permit of an appeal to the Privy Council. • There was no difference in principle. The Stay Now Granted. In delivering judgment- yesterday, his Honour stated that ho was. of opinion that the defendants had made out reasonable grounds for the stay being granted. ■ Their appeal would bo rendered nugatory if <i stay were not granted, while it did not npnenr that the Crown's- case could be prejudiced. The stay was granted, costs of tho application to bo borne by tho defendants. An npplication-thnt had been moved by' Mr. Myers on behalf of the Sugar Company for severance at tho trial was'refused by the Court. In another aDplication by the Sugar Company for further particulars, tho Court declined to moke an order, except in regard to matters not opposed by the Crown.