FLOUR MONOPOLY.
[»Y TKLEOftAI’I! —I’Klt I'UKSH ASSOCIATION.]
THE DEFENCE. WELLINGTON, Julv 21
At the Appeal t'onrl in the Hourmilling case Mr Skerret t. said the object oi the combination was not to limit the quantity of flour sold in New Zealand, nor did it seek to drive out competition or ruin competitors. Tim combination did not mamilneture Hour and was not responsible for the deficiency in tile quality of the Hour. The fact that there was a partial monopoly did not make a combine unlawful, unless it was of a nature contrary to the public interest. The case is proceeding.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19250724.2.35
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 24 July 1925, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
100FLOUR MONOPOLY. Hokitika Guardian, 24 July 1925, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in