UNSTAMPED SHOES

Evening Post, Issue 88, 12 April 1924, Page 13

UNSTAMPED SHOES

AND WOOD HEELS

.ENFORCEMENT OF;THE LAW. ,

Jrf a hkil? S °S s^ s WCT° again considwhereas they, were ..composed of brown paper and leathery contrary. ,to section 4' of the-Footwear Regulations Act, 1913 He was further charged that he kept ior sale shoes without having a statement of the material of which they were composed conspicuously; -.and legibly stamped thereon. '. - 6 " Mr. R. T. Bailey, who coriduoted' Uie prosecution', said that Sparrow purdiased a line of shoes' from' Hart, Penning, ton,, Ltd.. and two of' the spoes were stamped ."solid leather soles," but were iound to-contain/brown paper in their composition. . . : i The contention /.was, raised by, Mr. P. Keesing that there-was no' proof of ownership of the-shoes on the part of the defendant. ' •.' '„ i ■'.-■•, ■ . ■ The Bench said it .seemed clear that the goods came within-the provisions of the Act; and the' evidence showed that/ defendant purchased the line from Hart,' Pennington, Ltd., and it" was clear, he had them in stock... An offence had been disclosed.:. ;'.'. ..,-.:; ■■', -: -...}.... 'i .' In reply to' the Magistrate, Mr.' Bailey said that the line-, contained the ' worst samples of "alleged" footwear it had. been his' lot.ttf'experie'nceA^So '-'long-as retailers' bought those :lin'es\and'passed' them on. to the public, .sjp long would, the i.Londbn :..houses--'supply.'- them. y He. asked for a. substantial penalty j stress-"' ing the point":thafif:the retailera-bAught the poor lines they would have: to take the risk.' -■■ .' ■.: ":" „ '■■■ , Mr. Keesing: "It is a technical offence only.". ■ '\ '.'..■ The Magistrate: " I think a substantial penalty will have to be imposed. Obviously to a layman the shoes are not ' what they purpose to be. Defendant will be fined £10.'- As the. two pairs of 'shoes are in one line, I will not impose two penalties." •';'.'' ■ . ... It was stated by Mr. Bailey in connection with the Ideal Shoe Company, who w ere charged - with keeping shoes for sale without having on them a statement of ths'material of which they were cbm 7 posed conspicuously and legibly stamped, that the _ shoes, which had been made by the defendant company had wood heels, and have no stamp, as required by the Act. The company was not represented by counsel/ but Mr. Langley, who appeared on its behalf, said his company had been manufacturing unstamped shoes with :v.ood heels for about seven years. Defendant said that at a deputation he had told the Minister that the Footwear Act was not being enforced, and had 'supplied information to . Mr! Bailey, ".and-now Mr. Bailey is. using' that insupplied by.me for this prosecution';" '. „■ . -." . . ' Mr. Bailey: "Do you expect the Department to enforce the Act against importers and hot-against local-manufac-turers?. l rou asked the Minister to enCprce the law, and we're doing it." . The Bench (to defendant): " Had -you uot better get the Act amended so as to allow the wooden heel?" Defendant said- he could hot obtain a copy, of the Act. "The Government Printer told me it was out of print " he explained. .-•••■' ;•■ . .-.•'.: ' . Mr." Bailey: "While we are prepared to admit that there has been no "deception on the part of the manufacturers regarding wood heels, we must enforce the Act." The Magistrate said' defendant had committed a .breach of the law. He would be fined-£3. ..