RIGHT OF APPEAL

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 106, 6 May 1943, Page 6

RIGHT OF APPEAL

PRICE BREACH CASES

COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE PUKEKOHE, Wednesday. The disparity in fines for breaches of price orders was commented on by Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., during the hearing at Pukekohe to-day of four charges brought under the Control of Prices Emergency Regulations against a storekeeper of Mercer. * , , "I have had these cases before and there has been much controversy over the matter, but it does not affect me," said the magistrate. "I have my duty. The liability is an absolute one and the only people to be visualised are, the common people, who have to buy the goods and have to be protected by the price orders, no matter what is behind the mind of the vendor in the matter. There is a war on, and this is essentially a wartime provision. In some respects it is exactly the same as an army order and must be imolicitly obeyed." The" magistrate said that the maximum fine fixed was £100, and in the first case thai came before him in Auckland he adopted the principle that a reasonable fine should be onefifth of the maximum. The £100 penalty was for the very worst cases. A reasonable fine, however, should be imposed to prevent a whole horde of' people from thinking that they were going to be fined only £1 or £1 10/. ~■',. "I have noticed that in other localities the fines are not the same as mine," the magistrate continued. "I have from time to time referred to the right of appeal, but there has been no appeal yet. I put it that way to show people,, especially organisations such as master grocers and master butchers, that they can test the matter. This is not a challenge to people to appeal, but simply to indicate that there is a method available. In fixing a penalty I have to view the absolute responsibility.