SALE OF ARMY JACKETS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25303, 1 October 1947, Page 8

SALE OF ARMY JACKETS

APPEAL WON BY ’ DEALER £4OO FINE SET ASIDE (P.A.) AUCKLAND, Sept. 30. The price of used American Army field jackets was the central point of an appeal in the Supreme Court to-day. The appellant, Harold Manly Rogers, jobbing dealer, had been fined £4OO and costs by Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., for a breach of the Control of Price Emergency Regulations in selling 200 of these army jackets to a city store for £250, or 25s each. The Crown, represented by Mr Rosen, alleged that Rogers had made unreasonably high profits because he had bought them for only 4s 6d from a city wholesale firm. Evidence was given that the jackets were bought from the War Assets Realisation Board for 3s 6d, and that after repairs they were sold at -37 s 6d by a retail firm, which got them “rem Rogers. The appeal was taken by Mr Justice Blair by way of rehearing. Mr Rosen said the penalty fixed for a breach of this regulation was a fine not less than £5O and not exceeding £lOOO, or ‘imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. The regulation referred to “any goods,” and counsel submitted that must apply to any class of goods whether new or secondhand, or third-hand. Rate of Profit Whether the price was "unreasonably high” was determined by the particular circumstances of the transaction, said Mr Rosen. The usual profit in a business of this nature was about 25 per cent, but here the profit was 455 per cent. The only four factors for the Court to take into consideration were the price paid by the appellant, his cartage expenses, the price he charged, and the profit taken by other wholesalers dealing in similar goods. In cross-examination an officer of the Department of Industries and Commerce Frederick Slater, said he did not know of any other similar prosecution of a second-hand dealer. His department was not concerned with the sale of secondhand goods. The Price Tribunal had never issued a price for second-hand army field jackets Schramm, for appellant, said the defence was that appellant was a licensed second-hand dealer and so was not within the regulations. He had to make five t»ifcs to Wellington in connexion with the deal and the jackets cost him altogether £127 19s. Appellant had offered the War Assets Realisation Board £225 for 300 jackets, but he was told he must deal through the federation of wholesalers, from whom he later obtained them or 4s. A Queen street retailer said he would buy as many as Rogers could get for him at 255, and the retailer later sold them “like hot cakes” at 37s 6d. “Made Good Bargain” If the appellant had committed an offence, then every auctioneer or secondhand dealer who made a good bargain would be in danger, said Mr Schramm. His Honour said that no definite opinion had been expressed as to the value of the goods. The Crown wanted to proceed on the basis that the articles were worth only the price of 3s 6d that the War Assets Realisation Board sold them at, but he could not understand the rea-

son for saying that. The regulation was a highly penal one. It was only when they knew the value of the goods that they could" say how much profit had been made on them. Much could be said on the point that appellant was a secondhand dealer. He had certainly spent a lot of money in acquiring these goods and the case was certainly left in doubt. The appeal must be allowed. No order was made as to costs.