ALLEGED MONOPOLY

Hokitika Guardian, 22 July 1925, Page 1

ALLEGED MONOPOLY

Till-: CROWN'S CONTENTION'S. WE!,1.1 NOTON. .Inly li 1

in tin- Appeal Cniirl. Sir !•’. licit, iinitiimiiH' said licit in tin* sugar case. Levin and !.id., occupied n po.jji i ’ 11 -,iiiii!ar m that of I list rihuiors |,!d. 11 mi- ani'ii; for tin' distribution id i lit* goods. I!h* d -tn 11 d. ni'i’d nut wail lor actual harm in ensue before deciding that a eonspirai:-y or a. monopoly was illegal. air |i’air said that ihi* Crown contended that Distributors Idd., pre-v*-nlo.l the* bakers in Smithlaml and Dunedin irnm obtaining the flour they desired. and prevented any reduction in tin* cost of llnnr. and consequently of bread. I In* d rowu also argued that, the agreement was a breach of the Act. and being illegal. was contrary to the public interests. Distributors t.td.. could bare obtained Hour front other mills to supph the bakers' demands. Air Lauren soil, who was one oi the strongest opponent,-, of tlie monopoly, was tillable to obtain Oantarti Hour, and had to rely mi the local article. The linkers were prevented from going to the Northern mills where they could gel g'" r ' flour. On November doth.. Kit’d, tin* Ihrnr stocks in New Zealand totalled thirlv-two thousand tons. I hat was sufficient to carry on till February, when the new crop was available. Distributors. Ltd., did not bate to

bother to remedy defects in the flour knowing that the customers must take it. For fivo months, Flemings were turning out inferior flour, yet the clause providing for a. reduction in the price was not put into operation. Instead of the operations of Distributors Ltd., securing economy, they hatl led to an increase in the cost of distribution and dearer flour. The hearing was adjourned.