COURT OF APPEAL.
MB PRBBB ASSOCULTVCW, WEU.WQTOH, October 20. Continuing the argument in the floor milling oase in the Ctourt of AppeaL counsel for the defendant oomaunf submitted the agreement wm contrary to public policy because of the tendency to limit th 9 output, enhance the price, and prevent the improvement of quality of the flour. As to power of the company to take up shares, dx propositions were submitted to bar this, chiefly on tbe ground that % company could not part with the ana. trol of its own business, or limit itself m»ny w«F. also that the direeton had no power to conclude each traoe'action which was oat of the "-i course.
| Judgment was reserved. The Oourt u now hearing Baker t. Johnston and Company, a local case involving question whether theft or the lessor of tbe Club Hotel ire tesnou (ible for the cost of fire escapes and i pairs ordered by the Licentiic Ctonnittee.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19011030.2.13
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 255, 30 October 1901, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
157COURT OF APPEAL. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 255, 30 October 1901, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in