CAR DAMAGED BY FIRE

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 208, 29 May 1926, Page 9

CAR DAMAGED BY FIRE

♦ AFTER UNAUTHORISED USE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Napier, May 28. A car owned by S. J. McKee, ‘of Ha»- . tings, was taken without authority from." a stand in King Street, Hastings, on Thursday night, and found early 4-> s ”' morning in Irongate Road, baaly damaged by fire. SUBSTITUTE TOR LEATHER 1 BOOT RETAILER FINED. By Telegraph.—Prsss Association. Auckland, May 2a. Children’s shoes being stiffened with a composition substitute for leather resulted in tiie prosecution of Thomas Clark, a retail bootmaker (Mr.. L. P. Leary), in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. Defendant pleaded a technical breach and ignorance of the construction of the shoes. The inspector of footwear exhibited pairs of shoes of superior finish in which the outsole was of substantial leather but dissection had revealed that beneath it was a composition stiffening. There was no stamp on the outside to disclose the make-up of the shoes. Mr. Leary said tLe prosecution might suggest that retailers were passing “shoddy” goods on to the public, but defendant’s breach was inadvertent. It was difficult for a retailer to ascertain the quality of every- brand of shoe handled. The shoes under examination were made in England. . . The Magistrate:. He was misled by the dealer who supplied shoes? Mr Leary: This brand is recognised as . one the best. He exhibited a well worn shoe of the same make as the dissected - sample and drew attention to the evidences of its good condition after use. A. footwear expert said she considered the shoe was good value. Its price was Ils. 6d. and the brand had a good reputation. She herhelf would have no hesitation in passing the shoe as an all leather shoe. „ , , , , . Mr. Leary said defendant had been a strong advocate for legislation to pro. hibit the importation of inferior foot- — wear. He had «headed a deputation to Ihe Minister of Internal Affairs to request that English shoe manufacturers be required to declare the quality of all goods they sent into New Zealand. The Magistrate said he was bound to ensure that the public did not suffer and defendant was fined £5.