LADIES' SUEDE SHOES

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 268, 6 August 1920, Page 7

LADIES' SUEDE SHOES

ALLEGED SALE AT UNREASONABLE HIGH PRICE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, August 5. Hearing of tho charge against Dadleys! Ltd. of having 6old a pair of ladies' l euede court 6110C9 at an unreasonably; price was continued to-day when*' evidence for tho defence was called. William Holdsworth, of a firm of, 1 wholesale boot merchants, paid that thai shoes in question were of good quality.} and were likely to go out of. fashion at ony time. In opening up a .line of thei typo indicated, witness said, his firm; always put on an extra profit to com-? pensate for the extra-risk in handling.} Ho looked to cefc from 10 to IS per cent, extra profit. Peoplo who purchased suedei court shoes were usually well able to, afford tho extra price paid for them. Tha usual practice for costing lines of lrigliJ grade goods was to. put SO per cent, ea) landed cost. It was customary to put', an. extra, profit on better class , lines io( compensate for tho small profit'on other ■ lines.. A retailer would bo justified in; reoognising tho principle of replacement, value in charging for hi 9 goods. . In reply to counsel, witness"said thaw tho . 6hoes sold 'by defendants - worn ml novelty, lino and were only worn by a,\ certain class of fashionable people, i Manufaetiirere were now trying to intiXMj duco a different type of suede shoes. Hi this were done tho present fashionablo, typo of shoes would be dead stock. ; - Porcy Shaw, manager of the boot de* part.meut for Messrs. Sargood, Son, and!j Ewen, said that suede shoes were treach->] ,orous to linn die. 1 A member of another linn of bootinH porters 6aid that his. Arm had declined'; to stock tho lino in question owing to tho great risk in selling it. His firmhad been compelled to sell a ' lino of, suede-topped boots for 155., when they; had cost £2 55., owing,to their goingj ( out of fashion. Expert evidence .regarding the quality, of tho shoes produced was given by) William James Hiunmill.

Counsel was proceeding to cross-exi amine the witness regarding the neces* sity.of charging extra profits on able articles, when the Magistrate saict| ho doubted if that phaso of tho casa was material. Ho added that ho hatt, considered tho balance-sheet of tho defendant company and found that, now withstanding tho risks, .tho company had bten able to make a profit of about; £4000 on tho year's working. After disj! cussion witli counsel, the Magistrate eaidi ho was quite satisfied tlifit tlicro Oi great risk in soiling fashionablo shoos* that had been established by tho evw Ebenezer Giles Pinker, accountant alii l auditor, said that the value of the goods; dealt with by the company during the year was 415,490, landed cost. Overhead charges amounted to £5022, making' a total of £20,512. Tho total sales wers. £24,300; leaving a prcfit of £3794; amounting to 15.CG per cent. The case was again adjourned.