Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

WEDNESDAY (Before Mr Rex Abernethy, S.M.) BREACHES OF PRICE TRIBUNAL On two charges of selling footwear at prices higher than those approved by the Price Tribunal and two of selling footwear while a notice prohibiting their sale was in force. Perry’s Shoes, Ltd., was fined £lO on each charge. Price control was a sanction which had to be enforced: “whether we like it or not, that is the law,” said the Magistrate. The company had, over a period of years, made unsuccessful efforts to have its authorised prices raised. But if a manufacturer charged more than ■ the approved price and said he intended to keep on doing -so the Court had to enforce the law. Mr W. K. L. Dougall, for the Price Tribunal Said the first charge of overcharging related to the sale of nine pairs of shoes to Eastmonds Shoe Store on October 16 last year, at 47s 6d a pair, instead of the approved price of 44s 3d. On the same day the firm sold eight pairs of shoes at 44s lOd, instead of 43s 9d, to Claxton’s Shoe Store. Perry’s had sold shoes to the Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association, Ltd., and to Constance Gee, Ltd., of styles for which the company had no approval to sell. The company had never applied for approval for these styles, he said. Evidence on these lines was given by George Laurence Stove, senior inspector of the price control division of the Department of Industries and Commerce. During cross-examination of the witness, Clifford Keith Perry, managing director of- the company, who conducted the defence, said that his factory was working at 55 per cent, of its capacity. “We have a duty to our firm," said Mr Perry. His firm had not been successful in representations to the Price Tribunal for a higher mark-up since the tribunal had reduced the mark-up from 7J per cent, to 5 per cent, on certain styles. Such submissions were more relevant on the matter of penalty than on the question of whether the charges were true or not, said the Magistrate. On the question of penalty, Mr Dougall said that since 1949 the company had shown complete disregard for the law. Fined £2 on each of two charges on the occasion, the company was fined £lO in August last year for selling shoes at a price not in conformity with the price order, and ordered to pay costs on a similar charge, Asked by the Magistrate was it his intention to charge 7i per cent in future, Mr Ferry said this was “the only practical basis to work on.” Imposing the fines, the Magistrate said these offences really called for a salutary penalty, which he would impose if the defendant company came before him again. DESERTER TO BE DEPORTED Frederick George Ohlsen, aged 23, a labourer and seaman, was admitted to probation for two years, subject to his being deported, on a charge of ship desertion. Senior-Sergeant J. C. Fletcher said Ohlsen had already been detained for a month. He had deserted from the Gothic on May 30 last year. INTOXICATED DRIVER “You can count yourself lucky that you were not driving when the police caught you,” said the Magistrate, fining Cyril Benjamin Goslin, aged 32, a labourer, £lO for being intoxicated in charge of a motor vehicle in Phillip street on March 10. He was fined 10s for operating a vehicle without a warrant of fitness. Goslin pleaded guilty to both charges. REMANDED Donald William Greig, aged 24, a carpenter, was remanded on bail until Friday on a charge of stealing women’s underclothes. NO RETURN OF INCOME Allan Owen Barton was fined £2 on each of two charges of failing to make a return of income. Mr J. E. Millar, for Barton, said that his client, a showman, did not know he had to make a return covering the period when he was out of the country. THEFT CHARGES STOOD DOWN On the application of his counsel (Mr W. G. P. Cuningham), charges against Lance Robert Long, aged 19, a farm labourer, were stood down pending a probation officer’s report. Long was charged with breaking and entering the dwellinghouse of Eileen Ramage and committing theft, and with stealing £3 in money from Cecil Ernest Lambert. Detective-Sergeant G. C. Urquhart said Long had unlocked a house in Leitch street and had taken clothes and other articles, leaving some of his own clothes. He had stolen the money from a sleeping room-mate in a hotel. UNLICENSED TRANSMITTER Pleading not guilty to a charge of operating an unlicensed wireless transmitter, Robert Eamon Dalton McStay, a schoolboy, aged 17, was convicted and discharged. Mr P. T. Mahon, for the Post and Telegraph Department, said an inspector of the department had heard the voice of McStay, whom he knew, broadcasting on December 13. The inspector went to 8 Stoke street, Sumner, where McStay lived, and found him in an annex talking into a microphone which was connected to a transmitter. McStay, who conducted his own defence, claimed that the apparatus as installed would not transmit signals capable of carrying more than a short distance. To the Magistrate, McStay said he was keen on wireless and wanted to take it up as a trade. “You have been very foolish and you must keep within the law,” said the Magistrate. (Before Mr F. F. Reid, S.M.) ADMITTED TO PROBATION Appearing for sentence on a charge of stealing six motor tyres valued at £Bl, the property of Ballins Breweries, Ltd., Albert James Pritchard, aged 54, a motor mechanic, was admitted to probation for two years and. ordered to make restitution of £22. Counsel for Pritchard (Mr W. F. Brown) said that in view of Pritchard’s previous unblemished record probation might meet the case.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19530312.2.41

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26987, 12 March 1953, Page 7

Word Count
962

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26987, 12 March 1953, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26987, 12 March 1953, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert