PROFITEERING APPEALS.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 248, 16 October 1920, Page 13

PROFITEERING APPEALS.

THE "BIQ BEN ' CASE. DISMISSED BY FULL COURT. (By Telegraph. Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. T.lip Full Court delivered judgment this afternoon in the "Big Ben" alarm clock caws, an appeal by the Crown from the decision of the magistrate (Mr. S. K. McCarthy), in dismissing the informations against Haetie, Bull, and Pickering, Ltd., and other Ohristchurch ironmongery firms, and Brown and ])urcau. Wellington agents for the manufacturers, on charges of profiteering in alarm clocks. T)io judgment stated that the principles of all statutes must be applied to this statute, namely, to Bee what mischief was aimed at by the statute and the remedy which Parliumont had applied to it. The mischief in this caae was tho making .>f abnormal profits, owing to tho rireurnstances of the war. By the use- of the word "commercial profits." it was clear the Legislature did not intend to interfere with the usual nnd ordinary business methods of commercial men. A fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit must mean what fair trndcrs regard as a proper r*tc of profit to be charged, and it rnunt not be left to each individual magistrate to decide on his own view in each particular case. Tho fixation of a price- by the manufacturers, below which articles are not to be sold, was a recognised custom that existed before the war, and that established a rule to nell stock in hand at the new price fixed by any new scale of price which had also been in use before the war, aJid such was not profiteering, for if the retailers had not. so sold, the supply would have been cut off by the manufacturers, and that conld not have been for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. As to the principle of selling at the replacement cost the Legislature never intended that traders should carry on at a loss. Tf this principle was not followed traders would bo prevented from recouping part of their losses, and providing apainst future possible losses. The view taken by the Crown that each trader should sell at a fair profit on the price or cost paid by him, would result in the necessity for inquiry in each particular case, and price at which the article would be sold would have to be determined by the time at which the article was bought. As to the point of certain firms buying at wholesale prices and selling as retailers, such a custom was usual and beneficial to the public. The custom, if prevented, would result in a smaller number of retailers carrying on business, and such would riot be for the benefit of the public, which should have as many retailers as possible. In the case in which Bertie Smith, frrooer, of Wellington, appealed against his conviction and fine in connection with the sale of Mellins' Food, the Court found that the evidence that the current price charged for Mellins' Food was 2/f» was quite clear, itr was also quite clear that the appellant had Bold it at a price of 3/fi. In the opinion of the Court the price charged was an unreasonably high one, and the conviction should be affirmed.