MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24742, 6 December 1945, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

—» — WEDNESDAY , {Before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M.) REMANDED

Joseph Sydney Smith, a seaman, aged 18, was remanded to December 13 on a charge of stealing, at Amberley, a .22 calibre rifle, valued at £2, the property of Lawrence Riley Wilkes. Bail was axed at £25 with one surety of £25. Smith was also charged with the unlawful wearing of an Air Force uniform. Sub-Inspector G. J. Paine said that Smith, who was a seafaring man, had been staying at the Union Jack Club, and had there made the 'acquaintance of a young Air' Force man. This man wanted civilian clothing for some reason. Accused had changed suits with him. The following day accused had been seen wearing the Air Force uniform in the street. A fine of £2 was imposed. CONTROL OF PRICES The Christchurch Clothing Company, Ltd,,'was charged with selling goods when a notice prohibiting the sale of such goods, published in the New Zealand Gazette, was still in force. . For the Price Tribunal, Mr J. D. Hutchison said that the goods, which consisted of a line of men's suits, could have been sold if approval had been obtained. The firm had approval for the sale of "stock" men's suits, which had a special lining, as required. The suits sold, however, did not have this lining, therefore the firm did not have the necessary approval. It had, however, been obtained later, and the price fixed was 2s BJd a suit less than the price actually charged. Mr I. H. Taylor, for the defendant company, said that the suits had been cut at the Industries Fair in August, 1944. They were not lined till March, 1945. when the lining required was in very v short supply. The suits had been laid aside for such a long time that they had lost their identity by the time they arrived at the company's warehouse. A fine of £5 was imposed. Charles Capes was charged with selling ; lib 15oz of bananas at Is 3d a price not i in: conformity, with the relevant price : order.

': Mr J. D. Hutchison, for the Price Tribunal, said the charge should have been Is 2d. A fine of 20s was imposed. -A further charge against Capes, of failing to keep a price order prominently displayed in his shop, was dismissed. W. W. Keighley and Company, Ltd., were charged with selling 61b of 2in 12gauge nails'at ss, and 61b of 4in 8-gauge nails at ss, prices not in conformity with the relevant price orders. For. the Price Tribunal, Mr Hutchison said that the charge had been lOd per lb, instead of BJd per lb. On the first charge a fine of £1 was imposed, and on the second the company was ordered to pay costs. William Selby and Company, Ltd., were charged with selling a woman's overcoat while a Gazette notice prohibited such a sale.

Mr Hutchison, for the Price, Tribunal, said, that the coat had been sold at £ls 18s 9d' The price subsequently fixed by the Tribunal, when approval for the sale had been obtained, was £l4 0s 9d. The mistake in the price had been made by the defendant company. Mr A." C. Brassington, for the defendant company, said the fabric had been bought in 1943 and the coat had been made in 1944. The invoice . for the material used could not 'be - found, and the employee doing the costing had referred to the pattern book, where an error between gross and net costs had resulted in costing being made at 36s a yard instead of 30s. It was. purely an oversight in the office. A fine of £2 was imposed. PRICE OF HAIR CUTS

. Claude Alfred Lang was charged with charging Is 6d for cutting the hair of a boy under 16 years of age, a price not in conformity with the relevant price order. Mr Hutchison, for the Price Tribunal, said that the boy had been going to the shop for some time and had always been charged Is. The charge of Is 6d had been

made during a lunch hour, by an assistant Douglas Joseph Keenan said that he had been charged Is 6d for having his hair cut. The charge previously had always been Is. He had asked for a packet of cigarettes when paying, but had. not mentioned that they were for his father.

Mr J. A. Kennedy, for accused.,said that Lang had no personal knowledge of the incident. His assistant had returned from service overseas and had been back at work only three weeks. The assistant thought that the boy was over 16. In evidence, Lang said that he was busy at the time and if he had,known of the circumstances the boy would have been charged Is. Assistants had to take. £lO a week cutting hair to clear their employers. Barbers throughout. Hew Zealand were seeking a subsidy on haircutting. They were working under a stabilisation order and not a price order, .and could not therefore apply for a change in the order. In.. ordering Lang to pay costs, the Magistrate said that no birth certificate had been produced, before or since.