TRUSTS ACT CASH.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1607, 26 November 1912, Page 6

TRUSTS ACT CASH.

THE SUGAR TRADE. ! CROWN'AL.LEGES MONOPOLY. BUYERS' METHODS. IS COMPETITION CHECKED ? ■ DISCOUNT SYSTEM. j- ''Novel but very important" was the Atr torney-Gencral's description of the proceedings which commenced in the Sui prenie Court: yesterday, when several de- ; fondants were prosecuted for alleged pari ticipation in a sugar monopoly. The case, ! which was taken, before the Chief Justice . (Sir Robert Stout), was the first under the h Commercial Trusts Act, 1910. . r The plaintiff was his 1 Majesty the King. The defendants \vere the Merchants' As- ; sociation of., New. Zealand, incorporated, ■' & trade protection.society,-Wellington; the ;. Colonial 'Sugar Ecfining Company, Ltd., , incorporated in. : New South Wales, sugar '' refiners and sugar . merchants, 'Auckland; ! Levin' and Co., Ltd., W. M. Bannatyne ; and Co., Ltd., and Joseph Nathan and ; Co., Ltd., all merchants, of Wellington. : - . The Attorney-General (the Hon. A. L.i Herdman), Sir John; Findlay, K.C., and ' .Mr. H. H.: Ostler, of the Crown Law i Office, are appearing for the Crown. Mr. i - C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. C. H. ; Treadwell, is for the Merchants'' Association; .Mr. J. W. Hoskiiig, K.C., of Dun- : cdiri, with Mr. H. P. Richmond, of Auckl land,':,for, the,. Colonial Sugar Refining .- Company, Ltd.; Mr. M. Myers for Levin ' end Co., Ltd.; and Mr. T. Young for W. ! ,'M. Bannatyne and Co., Ltd., and for ijoseph Nathan and Co., Ltd. - ; . The 'Allegations. !! -: In the statement of. claim it was allegi led that tho Merchants' Association of New Zealand (one of the defenda-nts) was 1 established and carried on business for 1 the purpose (among , other .-.things) of restricting competition among its members .. in. the sale of merchandise and of creat- \ ing and maintaining a monopoly for its ['.members. It.'was .in Teality a' commercial \ trust within the meaning of the Coin mer- !,'. cial Trusts. Act' 1910. There'are'fifty-five [. members of the association, including the !' three defendants, 'Levin and Co., -Bannaj .tyne and Co., and Nathan and Co.; who j ore'also members of a ring of sugar buyi ers established for the purpose of buying :'eugar in 'concert or arrangement from I •the Colonial Sugar-Refining Company (an- ' other of tho defendants), and of cbntrolli jing,'determining, and influencing the price j (if sugar in the Dominion. i" Now, it appears that practically the , whole of the sugar oonsnmed in New Zea- !; land is manufactured; sold, and supplied i .iby the Colonial 'Sugar RefmingrCompany, i and of the sugar, purchased, in New Zeailaad.:irom 'this company,, the. prosecution • eays more than'.half the total-amount, is | .purchased by the "ring"- of sugar buyeTS ? (referred' : to, which ."ring," ,it is.-. ; .said, i.' is alcommercial trust--within the m.ean- ! ing of :the Act. -Altogether-,-there • are ! pome! eighty-three members of this'ring—, f fifty-five of them being members. of the Association of-Nevf. I ond JLeyin . and Co. (so .the'statement of ; claim alleges) act as for all memi. bers of the ring in dealing with the Colo- ! nial Sugar Refining Company. : A Bonus and Scale of Discounts. ' i ; : Before January 1, 1911 (the date of the r' looming into operation of. the Commercial ( Trusts Act,.1910). the Colonial Sugar Refini ing Compauy was in the habit of allowt ing a bonus of 10s. per ton to all purr ichasers. of sugar, who 'agreed to deal, exclusivoly with tho company; and it | also allowed certain' discounts varying I "with the amounts purchased., When the | ■ Act came into .force,, however, the comi pany abolished the bonus system, and es- [ tablished a sliding.scale of discounts run- : ning from 1 per cent, for a. purchase of i £500 worth-per .month, to. .44 per cent. [ for a purchase of £2509 worth per month. :. On-Aprjl 1, 1911, another scale was .subI", stiinitedj in -which .the discount ranged J- from l...per cent., for. £500 per month to j il per cent, for £10,000 per montli. This : second scald was later, done away with, ; and on October 1, 1911, the following new; T ecale of discounts was established,, ancl is 1 -Still'in force:—'..

Purchaser of- £500 worth of sugar per month, 1 per cent. .

Purchaser of £1000 worth of sugar per month, 1J per cent. Purchaser of £2500 worth of sugar per ! month, 2 per cent. Purchaser of £5000 worth of sugar per Or 'month, 2\ per cent. Purchaser of £12,500 worth of sugar per mouth, 3 per cent. ; Purchaser of £25,000. ;worth of sugar per month; 5 per-cent.'; : 'i , For What Purpose. • ' . tPhis last scale of discounts (it is ali */eged) was adopted by the company at the ■ feuggestion and request If the Merchants' .Association, and the "ring" of'sugar buy- - lers already referred , to. It i 3 further ' . alleged "that no single purchaser in New .' 'Zealand purchases sufficient sugar to obi rtain the maximum, nor can he obtain this 1 maximum discount except by becoming a member of the ring. In order to enable 1 fth© maximum discount to be obtained, • " the Colonial Sugar Refining Company per- • wits all purchases made by members of ; ■ the "ring" to be aggregated together, ■ as : Sf made by a single puf-chaser, and allows, discount to each of these purchasers.at. •• the rate appropriate to the' aggregate : amount purchased by members of the • .ring. The purpose of the Colonial Sugar j Company and of the Merchants' ' .Association and of the "ring" in.adopt-

ing this system of discounts and aggre- | gating the purchases as described is (it -was alleged) to secure a monopoly in the !■ Bale of sugar in New Zealand, and to en- ' able the Merchants' Association and He I members thereof to fix,' control, and 'determine the price of sugar in New Zea--1 Hand, and to exclude from T the business I of dealing in sugar all pf-rsonswho refuse to. become members' of .the association or ! -"ring," or to conform to the conditions - imposed by that association or "ring" in : fcespeofc of the sale'of'sugar: .. - " The Breaches Alleged. | As regards the definite breaches of the : Commercial Trusts Act,'l9lo, the statement of claim alleges, that in the month, of October, 1911.,' the Colonial Sugar Re- - lining Company (in breach of Section 3, '■'■ Paragraphs (d) and (e) of tlle Aot )' n K reecl ' to give Levin and Co. the maximum disr count of 5 per cent.- on all I purchases. , Similar t breaches of !■•' the Act i-fwbr'e':/! ..committed by the •' companyi'7hiakiiig': 1 •'•similar agreements : with the^other-defendants (Bannatyne and I Co., arid'. i KathanJ ; and^Co.). In October, i 1911, also.;the'.conipany.. committed a breach- ! of Section!' (b) amt(c), in_ refusing;"to':-supply . ; isugar : to' iFairbairn, Wright and;.: Co,j,'of::-Christchnrch, except i' on conditioh's'irelatively disadvantageous • ns compared 1 to'• the conditions on which !' it was supplied to members of the Mer-

- chants' Association. 'A similar breach was : alleged in connection with .a refusal to supply Dillicar Bros., of Hamilton, except on certain conditions/ All the other defendants were charged with "aiding or abetting, counselling, and procuring" the • commiesiO'Ti of these offences. Again, , Xevin and Co.. were charged separately | with a refusal to supply Fairbnirn, ; Wright ami Co., and all the other defen- ' dants with "aiding and abetting" ; this offence. Finally, the five dafendants/wero charged with a breach of Section 5 of the ;■ Act in that they conspired together to fcreate a sugar monopoly in.New Zealand. Whei* did the DiscountsGo? v ! . In pursuance of the conspiracy,' illegal discounts have been from time to time • paid by the Colonial Sugar Company, with , the knowledge and,consent of all the other ' defendants, or by Levin and Co., Ltd., with the knowledge and consent of all the other defendants to the persons, firms, • or companies who are parties to the corii spirncy. Particulars are set out by-the Solicitor-General as follow—Bond and i Bell, .£2SG 13s. 7d.; Brown, Barett and i Co., .£231 Bs. 2d.: E. Elliiighnm and Co., Ltd., Ml Is. 2d.; A. J. Entrican and ; Co., Ltd.. JC3I2 3s. 10(1.; Heather, Bobert--i on and Co., .£195 9s. 5d.; Langguth and . Co.. .£SB 3s. 2d.; H. R. Morton and Co,, | 4s. lid.; National Trading Co. of New

I Zealand, Ltd., £458. lis. Bd.; A. H. Nathan, Ltd., .£lO Bs. lOd.; John Reid and Co., £23. 2s. d-d.; W. S. Whitley and Sons, I Ltd., .£32 14s. 5d.; Aitken, Wilson and Co., £142 7s. 9d.; D. Anderson and Son, £28 10s. Ski.; Baillie and Co., £20 IBs. 2d.; W. M. Bannatyne and Co., Ltd., £113 3s. 10d.; Barraud and Abraham,' Ltd., £129 3s. 10d.; Benmett an-d Sherratt, 165.; J. Vigor Brown and Co., Ltd., £105 17s. Id.; Burgess, Fraser and Co., £195 19s. 10d.; W. .Campbell, £44 18s. 2d.; Canterbury Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., £56 4s. 7d.; Carswcll and Co., £47 19s. 6d.; W. E. Clouston and Co., £19 17s. 4d.; J. H. Cock and Co., Ltd., Nelson, £352 lis. od.; Common, Shelton and Co., £30 Bs. lid.; F. A. Cook, £03 Gs. lid.,; Ellison and Duncan, Ltd., £120 Gs. 9d.; H. C. Godfrey and Co., £57 2s. 10d.; Goldingham and Beckett, Ltd., £133 0s; Cd.; T., H. Green and Co., £409 19s. lid.; W. Gregg and Co., £42 16s. 5d.; Griffen and Smith, £99 9s. 7d.; J. Hall and Co., Ltd., £34 14s. 7d.; A. Hatrick and Co., Ltd., £131 lGs. 3d.: Irvine and Stevenson, Ltd., £19 7s. lid.; Johnston and Co., Ltd., £2flfl 12s. 7d.; Kettle Bros., £10 4s. sd.j T. Kincaid, £50 lis. 7d.; Newton King, Ltd., £G2 135.; Laery and Co.,- Ltd., £42 Os. 4d.; Murray and Crompton, 18s. lOd.; Murray, Roberts and Co., Gisborne,_ £54 15s. Bd.; Murray, Roberts and Co., Napier, £51 3s. 9d.; A. and J. M'Farlane, £10 os. 4d.; D. M'Lean, £33 17s. lid ; Mackerras and Haslctt, Ltd., £-102 Is'.; J. Nathan and Co., Ltd., £61 lis. Id.; L. D. Nathan and Co., Ltd., £284 125.; Ncill and Co., Ltd., Christchurch, £260 195.; Neill and Co., Ltd., Dunedin, £208 75.; New Zealand Farmers' Co-onerative Association, £214 Bs.; North Otago Farmers' Co-operative Association, £14 2s. Id.; W. A. O'Moara, £3 4s. 9d.; A. S. Paterson and Co., £309 17s. 10d.; Paterson, Michel and Co., £22 10s. 7d.; W. Perry and C 0.,) £30 Gs. 9d.; G. Payling and Co., £40 12s. 4d. ; J. Battray and Son, Ltd., . £342 lis. id.;- I'objohns, Hindmarsh and Co., £141 7s. lid.; Royds Bros, and Kirk, Ltd., £548 17s. 7d.; M. Russell, £13 75.: W. Scoular and Co., >£172 9s". lOd.'j W. Taylor and Sons, Ltd., £60 18s. 4(1.; Thompson Bros., Ltd., £26 18s. lOd.; .Thomson arid Co., Invercargill, £33 Bs. 103.;'. C. H. Tucker and Co., £147 Gs. Id.; W. and G. Turnbull and Co., £306 9s. 4d.; D. W. Virtue and Co., £91 14s. lid.; "Wairarapa Fanners' Co-opera-tive Association, £107 75.; Wanganui Supply and Agency Co., Ltd.. £29 10s.: Wardell Bros, and Co., Wellington. £78 3s. 5d.; Wardell Bros., nnd Co., Christchurch, £88 lis. Id.: Wardell Bros, and Co.. Dunedin, £2-3 10s. 5d.; Williams and Kettle, Ltd., Napier, £114 Bs. 7d.: Wilson, Balk and Co., £19 2s. 3d.; R. Wilson and Co., Ltd.', Dunedin, £247 12s. Bd.:-R. Wilson and Co., Ltd., Timaru, '.£214 10s. 9d.; Wrieht, Stephenson and Co., £81 15s. 9d.; G. ICronfeld, £110 lGs. 2d.; Hnwke'.i Bay Farmers' Co-operative Association. £63 2s. 3d.: F. Campbell. Greymouth, £19 12s. 2d.; United Farmers' Cooperative Association. .£9 7s. 2d.: Dalgety and Co., Ltd., £24 17s. . lOd.: New Zealand Loan and Mer(vintila Company, Ltd., £14 16s. ■ 10d.;': George Thomas and Co., £5 Bs.

What the Crown Claims. . The Solicitor-General therefore claimed on behalf of the ■ King :— (a) Judgment for a penalty of £500 against each of tho defendants in respect of each of the breaches of the Act alleged. (b) An injunction against each of the defendants prohibiting each from continuing or repeating any such breach. (c) The costs of the action. ' The Defence a Denial.

. . Separate] defences * were filed in' every case, and every defendant separately denied every breach of the Act alleged, and denied that there had been any conspiracy to create a monopoly. Moreover, on behalf of the Merchants' Association, it .was said that-it. is, and. always has been, open to any persons to join in wholeKale purchases for. the purpose of obtaining the maximum wholesale discount, and that it is lawful, proper, and customary to do so. This statement was also repeated in-the defence of the other defendants.A Second Case. There was a second prosecution in which tho same defendant? were .proceeded against. In this case the prosecution took the alternative course of charging Levin and Co., Ltd., with paying illegal discounts in respect of purchases made for six months ended September 30, 1911, and with agreeing, to pay- illegal discounts for purchases made during the six months following that period. The other defendants were charged with aiding and abetting Levin and Co., and with being knowingly concerned in the. commission of these offences.

As in the first case, separate defences were filed, denying, the breaches of the Act. <

At an early stage of the proceedings the Attorney-General announced that the Crown had decided to abandon the charge of refusing to supply Dillicar Br"s.. of Hamilton,. as there was not sufficient evidence to support it. Attorney-General's Opening, Anti-trust legislation in other parts of the world was briefly referred to by tho Attorney-General in the course of his opening. It first came into existence in the United States, he said,, and the later Acts were passed in the State of Victoria, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of Canada. After outlining the different headings under which the charges in the present case had been laid, the Attorney-General wont on to point out that the New Zealand Act (in the section dealing with discounts) differed from those in other parts of the iworld in a very important particular—that it did not permit any person to enter a defence "not to the detriment of public interest," The section relating to conspiracy, was the only ono where it became necessary, for the Crown to prove that the proceedings were contrary to public interest. Referring to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (one of the defendants), the Attorney-General said that it was an exceedingly ' wealthy company, had undoubtedly been enterprising, and was 'very well managed. It had works in Fiji, operations with Vancouver, employed "thousands of persons in the Pacific, and commanded a very extensive trade in Australia'. Tor its Now Zealand trade it imported annually about 45,000 tons of raw sugar, valued at £675,000. After the sugar comes in, it is treated at the company's refining works in Auckland, nJid afterwards sold. The sales amounted to some 40,000 tons, worth about £720,000. Other than that imported by the company, no raw sugar was.imported into New Zealand, and, as the refined sugar imported in 1911 represented only abont £11,250 value, the figures would indicate that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company had nractically a monopoly of the trade in New Zealand. , . In daiys gone by, before the company got a footing in New Zealand (the Attor-ney-General- went on to state), other sugars were ininorted by the merchants. To gain a footing tho Colonial Sugar Refining Company commenced orierations with the retailers instead of the merchants. So successful were these operations that the merchants were brought to their knees, and. in the end, the parties came together. , The syndicate system was then . in vogue, by which sugar was supplied to syndicates (usually formed by the Colonial Refining Co.), who obtained'discounts according to the aggregate' amount purchased. Counsel' then elaborated on tho bonus system (outlined :in\ the;-state-ment of' claim) that was m force just prior to the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910. coming into operation, nnd the system of discounts established subsequent to that. It would be shown that tho dominant motive actuating tho Susar Company in 'establishing the system of discounts was a' desire to exclude from New Zealand all other possible foreign competitors. Tho dominant motive actuating the Merchants' Association was a desire to get the special discounts offering, and to exclude from the benefits the small retailers. The latest «cale of discounts nractically excluded all'those except-members of the ring from the benefits of the maximum 5 per cent, discount. And yet tho "ring did nothing to entitle them to tho benefits. It was arranged at a meeting on March 15, 1911, that Levin and Co. should be the ■firm to nominate persons and firms cl : - gible to receive the discount. Mr. Hosking here remarked that the position of the Colonial Suetar Refining Co. was that it . knew nothing of the ■proceedings of the Merchants' Association. He did not wish it to be taken that" lie assented in any way that would inmly the contrary. The Attorney-General mentioned that 'Levin and Co. were financially responsible fnr tlie persons nominated to receive the discounts. Then, after referring to tho methods employed in transactions between the narties, he stated thai, for the twelve months ended March 31, 1912. the ring

I (by its agent, Levin and Co.) had received a total of .£29,088 ill discounts. Tho Letters which Discovery Was Applied For. Dealing with the correspondence that had been discovered in tho case, the Attorney-General stated that it clearly showed that the Sugar Company, for its -part, .was anxious to guard against foreign competition. In this connection he read a letter from the goneral manager, which included the following passage:— "The abolition of tho bonus will, at any rate, weaken the control which we at present hold over, the trade of New Zealand, and, if effect were given to your suggestion, it would mean that purchasers might, during the greater portion of the half-year, bo attracted to purchase competing sugars from abroad, and yet, by buying sugar to the value of over £3000, during tho last month of the six months, would be entitled to tho extra discount granted to buyers who had given us their regular and exclusive trade throughout the whole period to the extent of ,£SOO per month. This is a condition of business which we specially wish to prevent, our object being to ensure steady and ■ continuous trade from all customers, and to check, by such means as are still available, temptation to deal in sugars from abroad. Tho lever, which the Merchants' Association used in their negotiations with the Sugar Company was a threat to deal with sugar from abroad. . Other letters showed that very - few firms dealing with the company would earn even the 2 V per cent, discount. The Attorney-General was proceeding, to deal with the Wellington Merchants' Association and to read from their minutes, when Mr. Hosking submitted that this was not relevant, as there .was nothing about the Wellington Association in the pleadings. 1 Mr. Skerrett also objected. After some discussion the Attomey-Gen-eral said that he proposed to show that relations existed between the Wellington Association and the New Zealand Association. He then proceeded with his address, nnd afterwards came to tlio question of tariffs. Mr. Hosking again objected that this could not used against his clients. Mr. Skerrett also objected. Thero was nothing in the statement of claim about tariffs. His Honour held that it would bs relevant if it could be proved that discounts would only be given to those who kept the tariffs. At a later stage in. the afternoon Mr. Hosking objected that some of the letters read were not from the New Zealand Association, but from the Wellington Association. Mr. Gold was secretary of both. Sir John Findlay pointed out' that all these letters had been discovered to the Crown as from the New Zealand Association. , Another Letter Read. The Attorney-General continued his opening, and presently read a letter from Mr. Pnilson, of the Sugar Company, at Sydney, to tne manager at Auckland. This had bearing on the position of Fairbairn, Wright an<l Co. It contained the following passage:— "You will observe that the scale of discounts has been revised, and that there is an advance from the £1500 at present existing to £2500, to entitle the purchaser to 3 per cent, discount. This is specially intended to nieet the case of Messrs. Fairbairn and Wright, T. H. Hall and Co., and tho New Zea<land Farmers' Co-op., that ,is fimis which are inclined to give away a portion of the extra discount which tneir purchases entitle them to." More Letters. The position of Fairbairn, Wright and Co. w.as also touched upon in a letter from Mr. Watkins, representative of the Sugar Company. That letter said, inter alia:— "Regarding wholesale merchants, I am atraid tlio disturbing clement, to what I think would bo otherwise a successful arrangement, is tho action of Messrs. Fairbairn, Wright and Co., who contcmplato giving to all their customers, largo and small, all but .half per cent., of what they earn. . The merchants hops by securing the Tetailers on basis mentioned, to malte it impossible foi' F.W. and Co. to earn the 4i per cent., but should they only be able to earn 3 per cent., and give 2J per cent, ol' that away, the Merchants' Association will have to follow suit, and so the sugar business will bo unprofitable to all wholesale dealers. . . . P.S.S.—Have just received inunprofitable to all wholesale dealers, ers Association Syndicate have accepted unconditionally the offer made to them by the New Zealand Merchants' Association, as previously stated, and will- therefore, I take it, in due course be nominated to you individually by Messrs. Levin and Co., principal for tile united merchants of the Dominion. This is very pleasing, and only for the deplorable stand taken by F.W. and Co., would, I sincerely believe, give satisfaction -to all concerned. I am sure that th© New Zealand Merchants' Association has no wish to boycott F.W. and Co., and have invited them over and over again to join in with them, but with no success.'

Other matter introduced by the Attor-ney-General included the minutes of the annual meeting of the Merchants' Association of New Zealand in March, 1911. According to tho minutes, Mr. Harold Beitueliamp, chairman, said:—"lt has been felt desirable that the large retail-, ers should be offered the full discount, less a buying commission, and in my opinion it is most necessary that this should receive the support of members. The objects, which, of course, will 'be quite apparent to you, are that, by taking in the large retailers, we frustrate any outside competition from securing sufficient trade to enable them to qualify for the maximum discounts."

At that meeting, it appeared that Levin and Co. were appointed principals for tho whole of New Zealand, and were authorised to deduct from the bonus accrued or accruing any losses sustained by them in respect of purchase* of sugar by any member of the association. .

In another letter, read by the Attorney-General,-the selling terms of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Ltd., in New Zealand (taking effect from April 1, 1911) were set out. They read as follow :—

In addition to the ordinary method whereby dealers'in our products purchase their wants direct from us, it is proposed to recognise the following conditions of transacting business:— 1. Any firm of whose standing and reputation wo possess satisfactory evidence shall be permitted, as principal, to nominate other traders in Now Zealand as authorised to send their orders direct to us. Example: Levin and Co., as principals, nominate, say, Turnbull and Co., and other firms. 2. The cost of all goods supplied in execution of such orders shall, bs debited to the principal's account. Example: Turnbull and Co.'s orders to us will be executed in accordance with their directions, and the invoice cost debited to Levin and Co. , 3. For the invoice cost of each delivery made in execution of these orders, we are to draw upon the nominees, either on demand less i per cent, discount, or— subject to satisfactory references—a£ 30 days' sight net. Example: For the invoico cost of such orders we draw on Turnbull and Co. 4. The amount of these drafts shall be passed to tho credit of the principal's account with us. Example: The amount of such draft is credited to Levin and Co. 5. In the event of nomineesfailing to meet those drafts, tlio principals shall be responsible for tho payment thereof. Example: If Turiibull and Co. do not pay tho draft, Levin and Co. must meet it. G. Principals shall receive notice from us of each delivery made in execution of nominees' orders, and of the invoice cost of the same. This notice will merely record, in summary, the cost of goods supplied by us on a given date ill execution of orders received from a stated nominee, without stating the name of tho consignee.. Example: Levin and Co. will be advised that goods to the value of, say, £500 were supplied by lis on a given date iu execution of an order received from Turnbull and Co., consignees of goods are not to bo mentioned. 7. At the end of each half-year a statement of tho total invoice cost of tiic goods supplied during tho preceding six months both to the principals and to each of their nominees shall bo rendered by us to the former accompanied by a credit note for the amount of

the extra discount due in accordance with our published list of discounts. Example: A statement of the total invoico oost of the goods supplied to

Levin and Co., as well as to Turnbull and Co., and each of the other nominated firms respectively during the six months shall be rendered to Levin anil Co., at the end of each half-year, accompanied by a credit note for tho total amount of the discount earned on the combined purchases of themselves and their nominees. It is thought desirable that the distribution of tho discount should ' bo attended to by the principals themselves, and that the company should have no knowledge of tho manner in which it is allotted. 8. All principals, when appointing nominees, must do so by means of a letter, in the attached form (form outlined). 9. Terms of payment: Net cash for monthly accounts (subject to satisfactory references) or }■ per cent, discount for prompt cash. Extra disoounts, payable half-yearly at 30th 1 September and 31st March, will be allowed on tho following scale:—When tho average amount of each month's account during the six preceding months exceeds ,£SOO, 1 per cent.; when the average amount of each month's account during the six prcccding months ■ exceeds .£IOOO, 2 per . cent.; when the average amount of each month's account during the six preceding months exceeds .£2500, 3 per cent.; when the average amount of each month's account during the six preceding months exceeds ■£10,003. per cent. N.B.—The above extra discounts will not be paid in any case unless goods to the value of at least .£SOO have been purchased in each and every month of the halfyear. At 5 p.m., the Attorney-General was still continuing his opening address. The Court then adjourned until 10 a;m. today. _________