MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24545, 19 April 1945, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

WEDNESDAY (Before Mr G. 0. Chisholm, S.M.) PRICE OF PORT The sale of a bottid of New Zealand port wine to J. P.-Tlkad-Barrett at a price which the Price Tribunal alleged was unreasonably high was admitted by Charles Watkins Stafford and Herbert Stafford, hotel proprietors. After hearing the case, the Magistrate stood it over until to-day to enable counsel for the defence, Mr C. S. Thomas, to present legal argument on the question Of penalty. Mr J. D. Hutchison, who prosecuted on behalf of the . Price Tribunal, said that the charge, which was brought under the Control of Prices Emergency Regulations, was a profiteering charge. When a Price Tribunal Inspector went to the Southern Cross Hotel on December 22. he was charged 12s fid for a quart bottle of New Zealand port wine. He'asked for the manager, who went out Into the passage and told him that the price should be 11s. The manager offered him Is fid back, but the inspector did not take the money, as the sale had already been transacted. Mr Hutchison, added that the defendants through their manager ought to see that the proper prices were charged. The wine had been purchased at £2 10s a dozen bottles, plus sales tax, making the gross purchase price 5s a bottle. At 12s fid a bottle this would have produced 190 per cent, profit, and even at Us It would have produced 120 per cent, profit. The price charged produced more than a fair and reasonable profit to the defendants, and amounted .to profiteering within the meaning of the regulations. Mr Thomas said that the case was one In which-the regulations pressed unduly on the defendants, asi there was a minimum fine of £BO. If there had not been a minimum fine, the case could have been met by a reasonably small fine. The wine was sold by a man temporarily assisting in the bar, and he thought the wine was Australian, and charged 12s fid, which was the price for an Australian port. The price of 11s had been charged In the hotel for a long time. ..... Mi Thomas added that hotelkeepers looked for a gross profit in the bar of 80 or 90 per cent. If the price? of liquors remained static there would be no trouble, but some had gone up and some hod gone down, while hotelkeepers, did not make the profit out of beer that they did six years ago. He had been assured by licensed victuallers that anything below the amount mentioned meant that a hotel would be heading for bankruptcy. The port In defendants' bar was one line that had been moved up to keep the gross profit at 86 per cent. j When the Magistrate announced that the defendants would be convicted and each fined £SO, Mr Thomas said that only one offence had been committed. There were hotels In the cite which had several owners, who were beneficiaries to an estate. Would each be fined in' the event of a similar breach by the manager? The Magistrate said that the regulations laid down a minimum fine of £9O for each Individual. For a company, or syndicate the minimum fine was £2OO.

PRICE ORDER BREACH The firm of T. Champion atid Company, Ltd., plumbers, was charged with committing a breach of a price order, by seUing 21b of solder to William Arthur Smart at a price of 8s on June 8. Thomas Champion. who appeared to answer the charge, pleaded not guilty. . _ Mr Hutchison, for the Price Tribunal, said that the firm had supplied material to a builder for a plumbing Job. A complaint was received, and when the' Price Tribunal inspectors checked up the charges on the job, It was found that the firm had charged 8s for 21b of solder, which was 50 per cent, tin and 90 per cent lead, and saleable at 3s 8d a pound. Defendant claimed mat his firm had been called In by Smart to do the plumbing job, and had nob sold any solder, but had only sold a Job. .The total overcharge, which amounted to £1 9s 3d, had been refunded to Smart. . The Magistrate said that quite obviously the defendant had charged more than the Price Tribunal had fixed. He would be fined £2 and ordered to pay solicitor’s fee, £3 3s.

SHOPS KEPT OPEN “We have had repeated complaints from employers’ and Workers’ organisations regarding after hours trading, and these cases are the first of a senes/’ said the Inspector of Factories (Mr C. P. Collins), when hj« outlined the cases against William George Hopkins and Roy Montelth Hllder, who were each charged with falling to close tltelr Shops on a statutory closing day, thereby, committing a breach of the Shops and Offices Act Mr Collins said that the defendant Hopkins was a grocer and a fruiterer and confectioner. His two shops were open on Saturday, February 17. There , were cigarettes and tooth Paste In the confectionery shop, -and the connecting door leading to the grocery shop was open.' Defendant was fined 10s and ordered to pay costs _ The defendant Hllder, t for whom Mr B. J. Drake appeared; pleaded not guilty to the charge. Mr Coluns said that Hilaer’s shop was open at 8.15 p.m. on Saturday. February 17. He was In business principally as a fruiterer and confectioner, but he had in his shop certain goods that the Labour Department considered did not come wlthm the definition of excepted Evidence was given by an Inspector, A. Shaw, that defendant had on display in his shop malted milk, pickles, sauce, tomato soup, books, and other articles. Mr Drake said that Hllder had pleaded not guilty because he believed that he came within the excepted trades, and also he and other memßers of the Fruiterers Association had had difficulty in obtaining specific Information from the Labour Department as to what lines they should stock to come within an excepted trade. Defendant considered that his shop was an excepted shop, and by law he was not compelled to close. When Mr Drake asked that the Court should give some guide to the defendant and the Frulterers r Association regarding the goods concerned in the case, the Magistrate said that the question was whether the defendant" was exceeding his rights under the exemption. If a definite ruling was wanted,. technical evidence would have to be brought, as the goods mentioned were, in some instances, only trade names to the Court.

The Magistrate added that the defendant would be formally convicted, as he had kept books, and possibly other items, but he would be ordered to pay Court costs only. ’ BREACH OF PROBATION A breach of his probation was admitted by Bruce Billens Holton, a truck driver, aged 20. The Probation Officer said that accused had been released In November on a charge of theft.. On March 13, a complaint was received that he had been drinking, and at Easter he began, drinking again. His mother was prepared to take full responsibility for him, and he had the capacity to pull himself together. The Magistrate adjourned the case until July 19. REMANDS GRANTED A remand until April 26 was granted In the case of Frederick Leslie Dlx, labourer, aged 19 (Mr D. W. Russell), who was charged with indecent assault on Alexander Frederick Hickman, at Oaro, on February 26. A similar rentand was granted in the case of Alexander Frederick Hlckman„surfaceman, aged 24 (Mr D. J HeWltt), who was charged with Indecent assault on Frederick Leslie Dlx at Oaro on February 26. Bail was allowed in each case in the sum of £SO, and one surety of £SO, the accused to report to the police as directed. UNLICENSED RADIO SET For having an unlicensed radio set, Max Graham Eden was fined ISs. Mr J. T. Watts appeared for defendant. CIVIL CASES (Tuesday) Judgment for the. plaintiff by default was given in the following civil claims:— Reese Bros., Ltd., v; Arnold Winks, £1 11s 3d; Calder Mackay Company, Ltd., v. N. Glenn, £1 10s fid; Davis Gelatine (N.Z.), Ltd., v. David Botot.and Company, £26 0s lid; G. McClatchie and Company. Ltd., v. A. Winks, £5; H. Robinson v. T. P. Smith, £4: C. F, Cotter, Ltd., v. Emma Glasson, £1 10s; J."H. Wilton. Ltd., v. ,R. B. Owen (Blenheim). £2l 7s 4d; Drapery and General Importing Compapy of New Zealand, Ltd., v. E. M. Rough, £l9 9s fid.