THE SUGAR TRUST.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 284, 23 April 1913, Page 8

THE SUGAR TRUST.

CASE FOK TiJK DKI'ICXCE. , By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Tuesday. Argument was continued in the Sugar Trust case to-day. Mr. Husking, K.C., submitted th:U the governing pr.iieiple of the Act was that any alleged trust' must be shown to be acting contrary to the public, interests, and ilife qualification mini h- r< :■;! into the de'iuition in the Act. \\ ithout it, any two persona, acting in the ordinary way of commerce would be a trust. He contenued there was no evidence to show that the Sugar Company knew they were dealing with a ring or combination, and he quoted correspondence'to show that the company refrained from taking any put in the arrangements made by the Mer-' chant*' Awt.uauon lor ilie pu.cuase and distribution of sugar. Wellington, Last Xight. In the Appeal Court the sugm- case was continued. Mr. Hosking said that it was necessary for the Crown to prove that the Sugar Company had promised a discount to Levin & Co. No offer was made to them in particular, only a quotation to all. Even if the offer were made it was not for the reason that Levins were members of a commercial ( trust. On the contrary it was an offer for legitimate business considerations. With reference to the conviction, he submitted that under section 4 there was no proof that the Sugar Company refused to deal with Fairbairn and. Wright, except under disadvantageous circumstances, because that company refused to act in conformity with the directions of the Commercial Trust. He submitted that the public had not been injured • under a conspiracy charge by the Sugar Company's methods. He contended that the Sugar Company had i been punished twice for the same offence, . and said that all the facts used for establishing a breach of section 3 were • used in section 5. Also, he submitted I that this could not be done. He quoted I authority in support. Mr. YVilliams said that the Crown,u. under section 5, had proved, in addition to the facts necessary to constitute an offence within section 3, the fact t that the transaction was against the. ■ public interest. Mr. Hosking replied that exactly the •• same facts were utilised in each offence Mr. H. P. Richmond followed, andi 1 cited further authorities in support of .f , Mr. Hosking. The Court then adjourned till to-mor* row.