COMMERCIAL TRUSTS ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 August 1924, Page 4

COMMERCIAL TRUSTS ACT

APPLICATION KOI! (I I! PH!! KK-KPSKP.

I)l.'N HI) IN. August I'. In the Supreme (.'ourt this morning hi.s Honor, .Mr Justice Him, heard an application hv Mr F. I’. Adams, solicitor for the Crown, for the tion of documents anil hooks hy dcfendants in the ia-e in which the Crown is claimin',! a penalty of £ooo from a numher of llour-milliiio companics, under tin; Commercial Trusts Act. Mi S. Solomon. K.C.. with Mr W. P. Camphcll, appeared for the defendant,s. The summons, kron "lit hy t 1 :t« Crown, sought tin order that defendants should disclose their balancesheets. profit and loss ncount and private loiloer*. Mr Attains, st calcine in support of the sun.:: on-, staled that pt<seedim_under the Commercial liusls Act chanted the defendants with coinmittino an olfeiu e against tliai A< t. in that they had cmi-pitcd together to wholly, or initially monopolise their Hour, et l- .. such monepnly bein'; prejudicial l.i public interests. He contended that tin- <|ite-tion of prices and profit was one of the matters into which he was entitled to f>n in support of his statement of claim, and that, a.s defendants had admitted that they had in their po-sessien hooks which woo'd oive informatmn on that subject, he was entitled to the order asked for.

Mr Solomon said defendants did not wish to hide anythin;!. On the contrary they were willin'!, and laid <>ffered. to disclose to the Crown hooks and documents of every kind wliicli were relevant to the charm*. He maintained. however, that the papers asked for now were not relevant to the allegations nurh* in the statement of ilaim. and that, therefore, the defendants should not be ordered to produce them.

Ills Honor: ,1s any allidavit already filed conclusive? Mr Solomon said he contended it was. Defendants contended that they were charged with enteritis into a monopoly which was piejlldicial to public interests, hut that they were now charm'd with proliteerinp;. If tho Crown would come out into the open and make that charge he would not deny that they were entitled to what they asked for. He maintained that de'endants were not (tilled upon to make the disclosure asked. Mr Adams said the '.dfecl of the ,summon* Peine dismissed niioht ine.-tn that the trial would have to lie dela ved.

Mr Solomon jokingly remarked that even if tlie .Ttion were delayed for two vents defendants would raise no objection. His llouni said tliai. ill bis opinion, the eiaiilino of an order would bate ibe elfet. io a certain extent , of projudiciuo the in-'e. Delendauts had already filed afli<lavits of discovery, and before Mr Adams could succeed on tlie I resent elittrj'e he would have to establish com lusively that tlie documents asked lor were material. It was not proper to do that on tlie pre-ent summons; indeed, lie did not think Ike merits of the case should lie fo any extent colicl udeil on all interlocutory pro: cedilla;. The application would be dismissed.