SALE OF SUGAR

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 122, 25 May 1945, Page 6

SALE OF SUGAR

WITHOUT PERMITS

FINES IMPOSED Numerous charges relating to the sale of sugar without permits were preferred against Levin and Co., Ltd., Walter James Newman, a clerk employed by Levin and Co., A. S. Paterson and Co., Ltd., and Colin lan Howard, a clerk employed by the latter- company, in the Magistrate's Court today. There were six charges against Newman and Levin and Co. covering a period from 1942 to 1944, and involving a total of over 60 tons of sugar. A. S. Paterson and Co. and Howard were each called upon to answer three charges covering the period from September, 1944, to February, 1945, and involving a total of 16-tons. Pleas of guilty were entered in each case. Detective-Sergeant E. H. Compton said that all the sugar had been sold without permits to James Urban Patrick McCashin, cake manufacturer, against whom charges were pending. Mr. Compton stated, with regard to. Howard, that at the time the offences were committed he was' responsible for handling sugar and permits for A. S. Paterson and Co., and he had to prepare returns for the Food Controller The- returns were falsified, to cover up the transactions. With regard to tHe company, the facts were simply that they supplied McCashin with 16 tons of sugar. On behalf of the company, Mr. A. B. Buxton stated that on discovering the position they had reported it to the Food Controller. The position was that complete trust had been placed in Howard, who was responsible for the handling of sugar. There was no rationing as between the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. and merchants, Mr. Buxton said, but in returns which were prepared each month there had to be shown the sugar in stpck at the beginning of the month, the sugar sold under permits, the sugar received from the C.S.R. Co., and the sugar remaining in stock. What Howard had done v/as to show an incorrect amount of sugar received from the C.S.R. Co. Mr. Buxton submitted that the company had done all in its power to fulfil the spirit of the regulations. "There seemed to be no check, however," commented Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M. He fined Howard £25 on each charge arid Paterson and Co. £25 on the first and convicted and discharged them on the others. The position with regard to Newman and Levin and Co. was the same, said Mr. Compton. Newman had been approached by McCashin regarding extra sugar, and the sugar had been supplied. It was apparently no particular person's duty to see that the sugar that went out was only permit sugar. Returns were false and' it seemed to be nobody's responsibility that -they were correct. On behalf of the company, Mr. E. D. Blundell said' that it was, like the other case, one of misplaced confidence in an employee. The company had given orders that no sugar was to be delivered unless a permit number was placed on the invoice, but that, had been solved by fictitious -numbers being placed on them. - . The question of checking was not an easy one, he said. A large number of trained staff were in the armed forces and the company did not have the staff to deal with the vastly increased paper work necessary under rationing. The present system was proof against anything except- dishonesty. Newman was fined £25 on each of the first four charges, and convicted and discharged on the other two. Levin and Co. were fined £50 on the first charge and convicted and discharged on' the others.