HOTEL BAR PROFITS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 91, 18 April 1945, Page 6

HOTEL BAR PROFITS

WHAT PROPRIETORS EXPECT P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Appearing for the defendants in a prosecution brought by the Price Tribunal, counsel, Mr. C. S. Thomas, told the Magistrate, Mr. G. G. Chisholm, this morning that hotelkeepers looked for a gross profit of from 80 per cent, to 90 per cent, from their bars. Any hotel making a profit from the bar of less than 80 per cent, was heading for bankruptcy. Charles Watkins Stafford and Herbert Stafford, trading as the Southern Cross Hotel, were charged with selling through their agent a bottle of port wine at an unreasonably high price. They pleaded guilty. "This is a simple profiteering charge," said Mr. J. D. Hutchison for the Price Tribunal. He added that an inspector purchased a bottle of New Zealand port wine at the Southern Cross Hotel for 12s 6d. When the inspector interviewed the manager the manager said-that the price should have been 11s and offei-ed to refund Is 6d.

Counsel' added that the wine was bought for £2 10s a dozen, or 4s 2d a bottle, with sales tax lOd, making the price- to the publican' ss. At 12s 6d the defendants made 150 per cent, profit," and even at' 11s the profit was 120 per cent.

Mr. Thomas said that the wine was sold by a man temporarily assisting in the bar during the manager's absence, and he thought that the wine was Australian, and charged accordingly. The price at the hotel had for a long time been 11s. Hotelkeepers looked for a gross profit of from 80 to 90 per cent, from the bar. As the profit from some lines, such as beer, was now less than formerly, the prices of other lines were adjusted accordingly to maintain the gross profit from the bar at 86 per cent.

When the Magistrate proposed to fine each of the defendants £50 Mr. Thomas protested that only one offence had been committed. One city hotel had 50 joint owners, beneficiaries in an estate: Would each be fined in the event of a similar breach by the manager?

The Magistrate pointed out that the regulations laid down a minimum fine of £50 on each person. For a company or syndicate the minimum fine was £200.

At the request of Mr. Thomas the Magistrate stood down the case until tomorrow to allow the question of penalty to be examined.