LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1769, 6 June 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. TIMBER TRUST ALLEGED, MILLERS' CHARGES. A motion to have a statement of claim •struck out was heard in the Supremo Court yesterday by his Honour Mr. Justice Sim. Tho plaintiffs were Georgo James Goldfinch, juii., and Simon Hay, of Ohakune, sawmilters and timber merchants, carrying on business as Goldfinch and Co.; and the defendants were tho Rangit.ikei Sawmillers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., of Taihape, sawmillers and timber merchants. Messrs. C. P. Skerrett and C. B. Morison, K.C.'s, with them Mr. R. M. Watson, appeared in support of the motion, and Mr. 11. Myers appeared to opposo it. Tho statement of claim filed by Goldfinch and Co. alleged that the defendant company was established for purposes in restraint of trade and contrary to public policy, and that its functions and business consisted only in enforcing between sawmillers agreements which were in restraint of trade. In 1010 the defendant company passed a facial resolution 'which purported to repeal the form of agreement referred to, and later tho plaintiffs became shareholders in the defendant company and executed an agreement with them in the amended terms. The plaintiffs, however, alleged that the agreement was not binding on them as the agreement was in direct restraint of trade, in prevention of competition, and in limitation of output. The defendant company was an institution which allowed its shareholders certain discounts and other benefits, b,nt on an occasion when tho plaintiffs claimed to be allowed disccunts they were refused them. Accordingly, a diiference arose between the plaintiffs and the defendant company; tho plaintiffs claimed a right to deduct amounts from money owing the defendnnts, and the defendants refused to allow the deductions. On February 12, ■ 1912. the defendant company wrote to the plaintiffs a letter which contained the following: "We have to advise you that pending the settlement of your account in full we nre compelled to notify members to step all further supplies of timber to you. Of course, immediately the account ■ is settled we are prepared to sanction further supplies to you provided thevt vou notify us of any orders which you may place. We may mention that all the members in the Ohakune district have been advised to refer any inquiries from you to this office." The plaintiffs believed that tho defendant company . circularised its members as :follows:—"There is a matter in dispute between Goldfinch and Co. and tho association with regard to their account, and until this is settled we are not prepared to sanction any further supplies to this firm. We would ask you to decline any further orders for this firm until you aio advised by us that the matter in dispute has been settled." The association refused plaintiffs' requests for allowance, and (n February 21 asked for a settlement in f.ull within fourteen days. The plaintiffs then determined to retire from the association, and they elected not to be further bound (if they were ever bound) by the agre.» nient with the association. Tho association insisted on six months' notice of the termination of the agreement. The plaintiffs contended that whether the agreement was binding or not, tho .'is;'ociation was not entitled to issue tho .circular,.referred to, or to require sawmillors to abstain from dealing with tho plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seated that in consequence of the action of the association they had suffered great loss and damage, and would continue to suffer both in their trade and business and in tneir ttado reputation. As a further cause of action, the plaintiffs alleged that the. circular, was issued by the association wrongfully and maliciously.

Under ono or other of these causes of action, tho plaintiffs claimed that they irero entitled to ,£ISOO as damages. In a statement of defence, the association denied tho allegation that it was established for purposes in restraint of trade, and contrary to public policy, and asserted .that it was a co-operative company, lawfully carrying on a lawful business. Defendants claimed that the agreement was binding upon the plaintiffs, rr.d denied that the plaintiffs' had accurately stated the nature of the business operations referred to. Tho association refuscd the discount asked for, on the ground that the sales were not .on terms entitling plaintiffs to discount. The .issociation .asserted that the circular sent to its members was sent in good faith, and with no other object or motive than that of the protection of the legitimate business interests of the company, of which Vhe plaintiffs were members, and was a privileged communication not calculated, or intended to injure, thc_ plaintiffs in their business. Tho association claimed that it was entitled to take this course to protect its interests. It denied that the plaintiffs had suffered damages as alleged, and denied that tho plaintiffs had causo of action against it. Tho association denied, also, that tho letter referred to was sent wrongfully or maliciously. Tho defendant company then counterclaimed to recover from the plaintiffs JE334 Ms. 6d., the amount in dispute in respect of timber sold and delivered by the company at the request of the plaintiffs to Goldfinch and Andrews, timber merchants, of Hamilton. Argument by counsel lasted until late in the afternoon. At the conclusion of tho addresses, bis Honour reserved decision.