Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DECISION' RESERVED

IN CASES OF ALLEGED PROFITEERING

(BI TELEGRAPH.—PREBSi ASSOCIATION.)

CHRISTCHURCH, 16th June. Hearing of the charges of alleged profiteering against several local hardware merchants and Brown and Dureau, of Wellington, was continued to-day. In all the charges against ■ Brown and Dureau of counselling the committal of offences pleas of not guilty were entered.

In addressing the Court, Ml. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., submitted that the cases were so trumpery as to cast discredit on those responsible for the prosecution, and he suggested that the activity of the prosecution in respect of a negligible class of goods was intended to cover up a disinclination to take action in respect to basic lines. He submitted that no evidence had been adduced that the profit made! by any of the defendants was an unreasonable rate of commercial profit.

Mr. M. Myers made an exhaustive analysis of the evidence in respect of what constituted a fair rate of commercial profit, and submitted that it could only be determined upon recognised commercial practices. The prosecution had not led any evidence on the point. If fixation of-prices was objected to, there was ample power to make regulations abolishing or controlling the system. He urged that the question of depreciation of the value of money had a distinct bearing on the question of reasonable commercial profit. Mr. W. C. Macgregor (for the Crown) repudiated opposing counsel's suggestions that the cases were trivial. The result of these cases would largely determine whether the Act would remain a dead letter or whether traders were to be allowed to make what profits they liked under the guise, of what was called commercial profits. H» contended that section 32 was intended to refer to any- individual transaction. The cases, he submitted, were typical cases_ of profiteering, which must be stopped in order to avert something approaching an industrial revolution in this country. The Magistrate reserved his decision. To-morrow a case against the D.I.C. wiJl be taken.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19200617.2.102

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 148, 17 June 1920, Page 10

Word Count
326

DECISION' RESERVED Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 148, 17 June 1920, Page 10

DECISION' RESERVED Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 148, 17 June 1920, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert