No ice cream freeze case

Press, 24 May 1977, Page 4

No ice cream freeze case

All four charges of selling ice cream above the normal price during the price freeze, brought against the proprietress of Parfait Parlours in New Regent Street by the Department of Trade and Industry, were dismissed yesterday by Mr B. A. Palmer, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court. Heather Isabella McConnell had pleaded not guilty to selling single, double and triple roll ice creams and ice cream sundaes for more than the maximum retail price on September 27, 1976. A witness for the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr I. D. Teague, said that tie visited Mrs McConnell last September and she said that

she had increased her prices; the day before. Single roll ice creams j which had sold for 15c were( increased to 20c. a double ( roll ice cream increased from 20c to 30c, a triple roll ice cream from 25c to 40c, and ice cream sundaes from 40c to 50c, he said. The defendant had told him ; that the price of bulk ice; cream had increased some time before from $6.18 a carton to $7.22, and she felt that she should recover the cost. Mr Teague said that he told her about the regulation which allowed increases during the price freeze if a special application was made to the department on the ground of tiardship.

;[ She told him she would (consider this, because she; I was making very little money; | in the shop, but to his know- ; ledge no application was made, he said. Counsel (Mr K. C. James) j told the Court that there was [ no case for the defence to answer because the prosecution had not proved a sale, (which was central to the charges. There was also a lack of evidence to show what the normal price for ice cream sales was, he said. The prosecutor (Mr J. J. Brands-Giesen) said that there was no uniform price for any product, and said that sales could be inferred from the evidence. “On the evidence before , me a prima facie ease has not been made out in respect of

Hany of the informations,” : I said the Magistrate. -I “I feel that I cannot reason(ably infer that there were 11 sales of any particular type lof ice cream,” he said. On II the evidence given, he could ;|make no finding about > what constituted a normal price. These matters should . be subject to specific evidi ence, tie said. i The defence had sought to ■ have the charges amended, to ■ avoid the problem of proving sales, he said. However. “1 consider it would be unfair i to the defendant to amend ttie charge at this late stage.” ; He said that six months : have - elapsed since the ctiarges arose. “The defendi ant may be fortunate that : other evidence was not ’ brought,” said the Magistrate.