“MUST PROTECT PUBLIC”

Evening Star, Issue 18999, 22 July 1925, Page 8

“MUST PROTECT PUBLIC”

FOOTWEAR FIRMS CONVICTED SHOES INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED. Evidently the_ Labor Department is a, firm believer in the old gospel that “There is nothing like leather,” and, with the object of impressing that upon a, number of Dunedin footwear firms, against whom be alleged breaches of the "Footwear Regulations Act of 1913. the Inspector of Factories (Mr G. H. Lightfoot) produced at the Police Court to-day a quantity of footwear—some of it leather and Mime of it not. Surrounded by this interesting collection, Mr J. 11. Bartholomew, S.M., gave decisions which, the prosecution being largely in the nature ol tost eases, are of considerable public interest. Five firms were charged, though the informations against them wore practically identical. The first case taken was that against J. 11. Thomas (Mr J. B. Callan), who was charged (1) that ho did have in his possession certain child’s white buck shoes, the soles of which consisted partly of leather, without a statement of the materials composing the soles thereof being conspicuously and legibly stamped upon or impressed info flic outer sole, or surface of the sole, on each shoe; and (2) that be did have in bis possession certain Indies’ patent shoes, in regard to which the same omissions applied. Similar broaches were alleged against other firms. H. Isaacs (Mr IT. R. Barrowclongh) was confronted with one charge in regard to a pair of ladies’ glace shoos, R. J. Penrose (Mr J. B. Callan) was called upon to answer two such charges concerning ladies’ velvet shoes and Indies’ patent slices, Mrs B. Lambert (Mr J. Cl. Stephens) had four counts against henin respect of a pair of velvet shoos, a pair of leather shoos, a pair of child’s white shoes, and a pair of child’s brown shoes; and the Dunedin and Otago Boot Company (Mr VV. (1. Hay) were last on the list with two charges concerning a pair of men's patent slices and a pair of ladies’ black shoes.

Before pleading in ilie ease against Thomas, Mr f'allan raised a point as lo whether tlio imlentor, a man named Mitchell, should not he associated with the charge'. The goods, he said, wore brought straight to Mow Zealand, hut defendant selected them with the aid of samples shown lo him hy Mitchell. IJo called Thomas to substantiate this. The defendant stated Unit ho had ordered nil the goods from Mitchell. Witness understood the shoes to he “ all leather,” but they were not. Tie produced the invoice he had received from Mitchell. All the slices were supplied to him hy Mitchell in the same way as the shoos detailed in the invoice. Mitchell carried stock in his warehouse at Christchurch, samples as n. rule. Mitchell was the only person in New Zealand—other than himself--who had handled the particular line. I n reply to the magistrate, witness said he received no written guarantee, but the shoes ordered were branded “all leather.” “Unfortunately there is a difficulty in this ease,” said the Magistrate. Defendant had imported the goods.

“Tho word ‘importer’ seems to ho wide enough to cover Mitchell ” said Mr Callaii. “I’m afraid tho contention cannot bo uphold,” said the Magistrate. “ Even your ingenuity can’t get around it, Mr Calla*’” “ But your Worship will recognise that it was a point that should have been brought up,” replied Mr (Julian. Ho added that he would now admit the facts.

Inspector Lightfoot gave evidence as to tho procuring of the defective footwear from defendant’s shops.

The Magistrate: Could the fact that the shoes were, not all leather lie ascertained without cutting them open? The Inspector; So far as the “stiffener ” is concerned, yes. Even an outsider with a little experience could see, that tho stiffening material was not leather. 'The inspector went on to say ««jat for reasons of the Art tho bed of a boot or shoo was included in the definition of the sole. Mr (Julian said that defendant admitted that in regard to the child's shoe he had his suspicions aroused without the assistance of the inspectors. But ho had no idea that there was any fault with the other shoes. The nature of the brand on the hods was such as to show that they wore nob leather, and the public could not have been deceived. The other matters really fell into tho class ot the usual mistakes made hv dealers.

Evidence was given by the defendant respecting the identity of “ all leather ” and “ eoinpo.” footwear. Dofendant stated that he had thirty-two years’ experience, and ho hold that there was no infallible, lest as to whether the stiffener of a shoo was of leather or of good “eoinpo.” Hub good “compo,” was always hotter than inferior leather. Women disliked allleather heels, which they ’'condemned as being “ heavy as lead.” In easily nine-tenths of the line fotwear made to-day. the heels were of “ eoinpo. ’’ Speaking of the inspection at. the wharves by the Customs authorities, witness said it would ho better for retailers if that wore cither carried out regularly or left alone. “Surely,” ashed the -Magistrate, “ cardboard composition is inferior to leather?”

“ i have never had any complaints,” witness answered.

The Magistrate said it had always been contended in court that composition was inferior.

The .Inspector stated that the experience was that good “ compo.” was bettor than inferior leather, but not equal to good leather.

Mr Callan contended that (he definition of “ sole ” in the Act was very artificial, and the difiienUics with which a trade was placed in working under a statute would bo recognised. The manufacturer in England put a stamp making a declaration as to the. sole, but few of them realised that lor the purposes of the A'ew Zealand legislation they were making a declaration as to the heels also. There was a general misunderstanding among Dunedin footwear dealers as to the exact portent of some of the regulations.

Regarding the English nianufaclurers, the Inspector stated that he had seen several articles in English trade reviews respecting the Now Zealand regulations. “This legislation is more than (on years old,” commented the Magistrate. “That is so,” said Mr Callan. A LIGHT PENALTY. The Magistrate said that there was no “ importer in this case upon whom responsibility could bo east, and no wholesale dealer in New Zealand who could be got at. This perhaps was unfortunate, as Air Thomas appeared to have acted in quite a bona fide manner, and there had been no undue carelessness on his part in the conduct of his business. The shoo had boon put before him os a certain make, ami had been bought as such. However, Air Thomas could have safeguarded himself by insisting, when making contracts, upon the insertion of certain provisions. He must therefore take the responsibility. Tim public interest must be considered, but he (the magistrate) would what bad been pub forward, and inflict a small penalty. It must not bo accepted, however, that if such charges cropped up again similar leniency would bo shown. Defendant would be lined 20s, with costs ’(7 y )> in each case. THE OTHER GASES. In Hie case against .Isaacs, Air Barrowclough admitted a technical breaclr.

THo shoo, Mr Barrowclough contended, was a first-class article, though lie admitted it did not come within the Act. It was not in any sense ot file word shoddy. 1 The Magistrate said the remarks he had made in the previous case really covered that of Isaacs. A similar penally would bo inflicted. Speaking of Pouroso s case, Mr Callan, who entered a plea of guilty also in this case, said that a technical breach of (he Act had to he admitted, in so far as the part of the Act in which a heel was defined as part ot the, solo was concerned. This defendant was also convicted and lined 20s on each charge. On behalf of Mrs Lambert, Mr Stephens stated that the defendant believed the goods to have been inspected by the Customs officials on arrival at (lie port, and, though that was no excuse, it. had “ lulled the defendant into a stale of quiescence.” One shoo was invoiced at JOs (Id, and defendant was offering it lor sale at Os lid, which showed that there was no attempt to defraud the public. Though there was a technical breach there, were thousands of shoes in the shop, amt it was easy to overlook one or two pairs. “As pointed out in the previous eases,” remarked the Magistrate, iu couvieling the defendant and fining her 20s on cash charge, “ the rciader must shoulder the responsibility in the absence of the importer.” Though admittinga technical breach in reward to the ladies’ shoes, Mr Hay (Mitered a, plea, of not guilty lor the Dunedin and Otago Hoot Company in respect to the men’s patent shoes. His contention was that under the. Act cardboard was allowed as filling, though not as part of the stiffening. Claude William Williams, an inspector of footwear, said that the material described as h.vvn paper was really cardboard, and was put in to give the stiffener the necessary solidarity, it was not used for the purpose ot filling up space. _ _ He admitted to Mr Hay that he Intel told the defendant that the stiffener itself was quite sufficient. Hut th-if was a question of individual taste. Albert Edward Richards, boot manufacturer. carrying on business under the name of the Otago Boot Company, Ltd said that the slice was a danciim'shoe, and the leather itself was specially selected for its pliability. Such leather'was stiff enough in itself. Most clas.-.es of leather had a special dye, and the cardboard absorbed this. It thus had a specially useful function as a filler in view of the fashion for silk hose, which would be ruined if the dye rot loose. . i - i " Witness and the inspector debated the point as to whether the cardboard was to fill a space or to act as part of the stiffening. , .Mr Hay said that in regard to the other pair of shoes, the only misstatement was that one of the descriptions, which read “ cardboard insole,” should have read “cardboard insole and stiifener.” „ xl . ... “A fine point,” was the description the magistrate gave to the argument as to whether the cardboard was or was not part of the stiffening of the patent leather shoe. “It looks like one ot those points,” ho said, “ that should he referred to' a disputes committee!” (La n editor.) Two experts, however, had argecd that without the cardboard the stiffener was firm enough in itself, ami that' carried the matter a long way. '[’here was an element of doubt, and the defendant was entitled to the benefit. That charge would he dismissed, hut on the other defendant would bo convicted and lined 20s, with costs.