PRICE ORDER CHARGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 May 1943, Page 6

PRICE ORDER CHARGE

TRICKERY DENIED. ; ■ WELLINGTON, May 14. ] Mr. Justice Hunter, President of j the Price Tribunal, referred to-day I to a Press Association message from Gisborne dated May 12, with reference to a prosecution concerning an alleged breach of a.Price Order governing the price'of iodised salt, and which had been withdrawn by leave of the Court. His Honor said that this case was reported to the Tribunal by an Inspector as a breach of a Price Order and a prosecution was authorised and commenced. Later the inspector reported that he had made a mistake, the salt purchased by him being of j another brand not covered by a Price Order. The Tribunal thereupon instructed its officers to arrange for proceedings to be withdrawn. There was perhaps some excuse for the inspector making this mistake, he said. In the course of his journey he had travelled hundreds of miles, visited hundreds of shops, and reported many breaches. A more serious matter was the allegation made in the Court on behalf of defendant to the effect that the inspector had tricked him into selling-the salt in question, with a view to attempting to obtain a conviction, by stating that he suffered from goitre. “The inspector is at present in the South Island in the course of his duties,” His Honor said, “but has been communicated with by telephone and denies that he made any such statement as attributed to him by the defendant. He says that nothing at all was said about goitre. He merely asked the price of the salt and bought it in the ordinary way.” He added that the Tribunal would not for a moment tolerate any trickery or subterfuge by its inspectors in the course of their duties, and this was well-known to inspectors. COUNSEL’S REPLY. GISBORNE, May 15. With reference to the statement by Judge Hunter regarding the recent Price Tribunal prosecution in Gisborne, counsel for the defendant, Mr. L. T. Burnard, stated to-day that His Honor’s comment was contradicted by the facts and the Court records. When the case was first called there was no appearance of the prosecution. On the second occasion, the Price Tribunal sought a further adjournment, and this was granted on condition that the evidence of the defendant, who came from a distance, was taken. This evidence was given on oath, and was open to cross-examin-ation. It formed the basis of a statement made by counsel when the case was called a third time, and the prosecution sought leave to withdraw the charge, and which statement was now disputed by Judge Hunter. There was an interval of something like a month between taking the defendant’s evidence and the final disposal of the case, so that the Price Tribunal must nave been aware of the circumstances alleged by defendant. Notwithstanding this, no, attempt was made to refute defendant’s allegations. On the contrary, counsel for the Tribunal expressly stated in Court that he accepted defendant’s version.