Goods’ Origin Not In Advertisement

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30269, 23 October 1963, Page 14

Goods’ Origin Not In Advertisement

(Neu> Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, October 22. Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., fined the tailoring firm of Hugh Wright, Ltd., £5 in the Magistrate’s Court at Auckland today for failing to indicate the country of origin of goods described in a newspaper advertisement. In a reserved decision the Magistrate said it was company’s duty to make sure that the words “made in New Zealand” were inserted in the advertisement. The failure to do so, under the circumstances, was not excusable.

The company had pleaded not guilty to a charge of failing to include an indication of the country of origin of clothing advertised in the “Auckland Star" of May 29. Mr I. Barker appeared for the company and Mr C. M Nicholson represented the Department of Industries and Commerce. The Magistrate said the facts were not disputed. The defence was that the omission to print “made in New Zealand” was excusable, on the ground that every reasonable care was taken.

It was admitted that on several occasions the company had been warned of the omission.

The Magistrate said there might have been a reason tor the omission. It was well kiown that in New Zealand there was a decided preference for foreign-made goods, erpecially those made in England

Consequently, an advertisement likely to convey to the public the impression chat goods were of foreign origin would tend to attract or promote more business

In his opinion, said the Magistrate, a glance at the advertisement clearly suggested the goods were of foreign origin. “In my opinion it was tne company’s duty to make sure the necessary words were inserted and the failure to do so was, under the circumstances not excusable. The very words should be looked for by the company when the company received the proof,” he said.