DISPUTE OVER UNSTAMPED SHOES

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 298, 15 September 1927, Page 15

DISPUTE OVER UNSTAMPED SHOES

PROSECUTION FAILS. Reserved judgment has heerr given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrates Court, in tho case in which the Labour Department proceeded against Thomas Perry and Son, Ltd., footwear manufacturers, or Christchurch, for having sold shoes the soles of which were not wholly of leather, without -having a statement ot the materials composing theJu clearly stamped ou each one ■ The Magistrate said that the charge was laid ulidei - section 4 of the lootwear Regulations Act, 1913. Section 3 of this Act provides that tho word “sole includes tlie heel-stiffening or the heel counter, but tlie Act contains no definition of leather board, nor of skinings nor of scraps The evidence had mot inane it very clear wheher the sheets of leather used tn the slices adhered together as a result of the natural gelatin, but assuming that it had been established that seine adhesive lias been used, he did not think the effect woujd be to bring the shoe within the statute and to require it to be stamped. The Magistrate went on to say that the statute was designed to prevent material liavKig the iippcarance of leather being passed off as leather, but there were many substitutes other than leather in an "all leather shoe. It could not be suggested that the presence of the glue with which thin slips were stuck together rendered stamping necessary. Under the circumstances the case would be dismissed. Security for appeal was fixed at £lO .10s.