LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1776, 14 June 1913, Page 15

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. TRADE CIRCULAR & CLAIM FOR £1500 DAMAGES. SAWMILL TRADE, NO CAUSE FOR ACTION FOUND. A reserved judgment of interest was delivered by Mr. Justice Sim in tho Supreme Court yesterday in connection with a motion to havo a statement of claim struck out, and tho action dismissed, on tho ground that the statement of claim did not disclose any cause of action. In this action tho plaintiffs wcro George James Goldfinch, jun., and Simon Hay, of Ohakune, sawmillers and timber merchants, carrying on business as Goldfinch and Co. Tho defendants were the Rangitikei Sawmillers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., sawmillers and timber merchants, of Taihape. At tho hearing, Mr. C. P. Skorrott, K.C., Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., and Mr. E. M. Watson appeared in support of tho defendants' motion, which was opposed by Mr. M. Myers, on' behalf of tho plaintiffs.

Tho Circular. It was agreed that the motion Bhould be dealt with as if it had been an issue of law stated under E. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question of law to be determined being whether the Statement of Claim, read together with tho documents which, by consent, were put in at the argument, disclosed any cause of action. Tho material facts as disclosed in the Statement of Claim and documents were these:—Goldfinch and Co. are sawmillers and timber merchants carrying on business at Ohakune, Wanganui, and Hamilton. The Rangitikei Association is a company limited by guarantee, and registered under the Companies Act, 1908. The association has entered into agreements with a number of Bawmillers (members of the association) carrying on business in the provincial district of Wellington. One of these agreements was mado with the plaintiffs. By this agreement the plaintiffs, for tho term of three years, commencing on June 1, 1910, agreed to sell to tho association, and tho association agreed to purchase, at certain specified prices, the whole of the output of merchantable timber from tho plaintiffs' sawmill or sawmills. Various other provisions were also inserted in the agreement in regard to tho , payment of. accounts, dealing with urgent orders and the like.

Some time before February, 1912, a dispute arose with regard to discounts claimed by the plaintiffs on timber supplied by the association to a firm of Goldfinch and Andrews, of Hamilton. The association refused to recognise a certain claim which was thon made, and Goldfinch and Co. thereupon deducted the amount in dispute from tho sum payable by them to the association. On February 12, 1912, the association wrote a letter to Goldfinch and Co., in which the following passage occurs:— ' "Wo havo also to advise you that pending tho ■ settlement of your account v in full, we are compelled to notify members to stop all further supplies of timber to you. Of course, immediately tho account is settled we are prepared to sanction further supplies to you, provided that you notify ~ us of any orders you may place." ■ It was alleged in the. statement of claim that on tho sanio date the Kangitikei Sawmillers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., issued to all its agents a circular requiring "them not' to supply Goldfinch and Co. with timber and material. In consequence of this circular Goldfinch and Co. alleged that they had suffered great loss and damage, and they claimed £1500 as damages. Tho question for the Court to consider was whether Goldfinch and Co. had any cause of action. His Honour Traverses the Case. ' In tho courso of' his judgment yesterday, his Honour stated that it had been held to bs.an actionable wrong for two or •more persons to combine or conspire together, without.lawful justification, with the intention and effect of doing harm to a person by intimidating other persons and coercing them to act in a certain way. U has not been decided," ho continued, whether the same class of acts aro not actionable, oven if done by a single person, without any conspiracy, combination, or agreement for joint action with others. :.: • lo J' tlie purpose of dealing with this cage 1 shall assumo that there may bo actionable intimidation by one person acting alone. The question then is whether such a case has been made out by Goldfinch and Co. Looking at tho terms of the agreements between the Rangitikei Association and its members, it seems to me that the members to whom tho circular was addressed cannot be treated as third persons for the purposes of intimidation or coercion. In all that relates to the sale of timber from their sawmills, these .members aro tho agents of the Rangitikei. Association. The circular was nothing more than a direction from tho Rangitikei Association to its agents not to do any business with the plaintiffs on behalf of the association. It it is not more than that, then plainly it cannot givo Goldfinch and Co. any cause of action." * His Honour next considered tho allegation that the agreements referred to above were in restraint of trade, and therefore void. On this point he held tliß argument on behalf of Goldfinch and Co. to bo unsound, and he further held that a question that had been raised as to tho company's registration under the Companies Act was not open for discussion in tho action, whatever tho position might be on the counter-claim. What His Honour Found. "I think, . therefore," concluded his Honoirr, "that the association is entitled to have tho action dismissed. It was agreed that tho plaintiffs should have an opportunity of considering whether any cause of action might be introduced by amendment. The order I make, therefore, i 3 this: The action is to bo dismissed with costs 30 guineas and disbursements, if within ono calendar month from this date the plaintiffs do not obtain from the Court or a Judge in Chambers leavo to amend the statement of claim by alleging a good cause of action in relation to tho said' circular." One month was also allowed as a time within which a defence to the counter-claim might be filed.