LOSS OF PROFIT

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 200, 24 August 1945, Page 6

LOSS OF PROFIT

FARMER TO PAY £376

BREACH OF PRICE ORDER

"After careful consideration I am unable to find any valid reason whydefendant should retain any portion of the illicit profit."

I So said Mr. J. Morling, S.M., in I the Magistrate's Court to-day in fining Douglas Needham. a farmer, of Waiau Pa. £5 for a breach of the Control of Prices Emergency Regulations, 1939, and ordering him to pay into the War Expenses Account 3/6, representing the difference between the price he charged for potatoes and the authorised price. "So far as I am aware this is the first prosecution and heavier penalties will probably be imposed in any future offences of this kind." said Mr. Morling in a reserved judgment. He pointed out that under the regulations the maximum penalty was a fine of £100 and, in addition, the Court had power to make an order for the payment of any excess received into the War Expenses Account.

Reviewing the evidence, the magistrate said defendant had pleaded guilty to selling wholesale 3i tons of main crop potatoes for £408 8/6, this price not being in conformity with the price order. Under the order made by the Price Tribunal the authorised price for potatoes planted on or before March 31, 1945, was £10 a ton and defendant should have received £32 5/. The potatoes in this case were planted in aryPotatoes Washed Carefully

"He had employed some workers to wash the potatoes carefully so as to present the appearance of new potatoes and he sold them as such, but the evidence clearly showed that in fact they were old potatoes," said Mr. Morling.

"Defendant states he had suffered loss from bad crops for three years and also from blight getting into his crop," the magistrate continued, "but such excuses, if permitted, would render the regulations of little avail in protecting the public from profiteering and, in my opinion, do not afford to the defendant any justification for selling potatoes at a price in excess of the authorised price and obtained by false representation that they were new potatoes.

"It can be said in his favour that he was straightforward when interviewed by the officer from the Department regarding the sale and he did not by false evidence endeavour to hide the fact that he had, with full knowledge of the legal position, acted wrongly. I have these features in mind when fixing the penalty, but they do not, in my opinion, affect the question of forfeiture of profit to which he was not entitled."

Mr. Cleal, who prosecuted at the hearing last Friday, said he had been instructed by the Department to ask for the payment of the excess into the War Expenses Account. Defendant was represented by Mr. Horrocks.