BOOT SOLES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 114, 15 May 1926, Page 18

BOOT SOLES.

ADDITION OF PAPER. THE BRANDING REGTTLATION. WELIJKGTOV APPEAL DISMISSED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. The fine nature of distinctions included in the legislation which protects the New Zealand public from the sale of shoddy footwear was emphasised in an appeal to the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Reed to-day by Hallensteinj Brothers, Ltd., from n conviction and' fine of £5 by Mr. E. Page, S.M., on a ; charge of exposing shoes for sale without having a statement of the material comprising the soles stamped or compressed in the actual surface of the sole of each shoe, as provided by the Footwear Regulations Act of 1913. Mr. C A. Berendeen, who appeared on ! behalf of respondent, the inspector of factories, said the Act stipulated that unless the soles were of leather without admixture or addition, the materials comprising them ehould be stamped on the soles. "Sole" was defined in the Act as all that part of the shoe which in use ie under the foot of the wearer, including the insole and outaole and heel and heel stiffener. Mr. A. W. Blair, for appellants, said the artificial definition of "sole" in the Act made the stiffener of the heel part of the shoe. In the particular shoe which was the cause of the prosecution there was a substantial leather Btiffener, but there was placed inside the leather stiffener a brown paper lining. His Honor: The question is, •whether the insertion of the paper inside the leather stiffener is a breach of the section. Mr. Yes; but in view of the fact that there is a substantial leather stiffoner, a statement on the sole that it was composed o" leather and paper would give the public a wrong idea of the value of the shoe. The inspector of factories stated in evidence that the paper would tend to e.ig and alter the shape of the heel in wet weather. His Honor said that, on the face of it, he could see no harm in adding thin brown paper to the leather stiffening in the case of the lady's shoe concerned. In the caie of a workman's shoe, "rWrh was used often in the wet, the presence of paper would no doubt be harmful. Mr. Berendsen: The idea of the Act is to enable the public to choose for themselves whether they will have all leather goods or not. His Honor remarked that if the insertion of such paper was known to be harmful the department could obtain plenty of evidence of the collapse of shoes on that account. It seemed to him that the Act should be administered reasonably. Technical evidence of a number of witnesses was taken, after which the appeal was dismissed. •