THE SUGAR TRUST.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 289, 29 April 1913, Page 5

THE SUGAR TRUST.

COUNSEL'S ADDRESSES.

Per Press Association,

Wellington, Last Night. In the Appeal Court, at the conclusion of his review of the evidence in connection with the Sugar Trust case, the At-torney-General made some general observations on the construction of the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910. He said that the statute was not aimed, against ordinary normal business transactions, but against artificial -attempts at destroying ordinary normal competition. Its object was to check monopolistic combinations and to oppose the keeping up of prices by artificial means. It was to prevent a combination of individuals from obtaining complete control of the business relating to any.-.of the commodities set out in the schedule, to the exclusion of possible competition from outside New Zealand, such exclusion being harmful to the community.

Sir John Findlay, who followed on hehalf of the Crown, submitted., that the ordinary rules of construction were applicable to the statute, which was remedial in its nature, and must, therefore, be interpreted pro bono publico. He Baid that the mischief was a monopoly tending to stifle free competition. In 1844. he contended that the transactions of the Sugar Company and a ring would have been indictable in England prior to the passing of that statute, and further that the combination would be illegal in England as a monopoly at the present day, but would not be penalised. He impressed upon the Court that the basic principle of the Commercial Trusts Act was the protection of free competition. He put the tests of a monopoly as follows: (1) Did the agreement operate contrary to the public by (a) restricting competition, or (b) obstructing the ordinary course of trade? (2) apart from its operation (a) was the agreement in its interest or in the nature of a restraint of trade; or (h) had it for its true purpose the restraint-of trade? Tlte use of the term "partial monopoly" showed that the Act was aimed at any interference with free competition. If discount is given because a person is a member.of a commercial trust an ofTerice was constituted, even if the public were not prejudiced. Ho went on to show that the facts in this case showed that offences had been committed under sections 3 and 5 of the Act. He said that it was admitted that the methods of the Sugar Company, prior to the Act, would have been illegal under the Act, and he contended that the company had reconstituted those methods since the Act. He had not concluded this branch of his argument when the Court adjourned. Argument will be continued to-morrow at 10.30 a.m.