AUSTERITY REGULATIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 December 1943, Page 2

AUSTERITY REGULATIONS

CLOTHING FIRMS FINED AUCKLAND, Dec. 10. “These prosecutions are being brought as a warning,” said Mr, S. Cleal when outlining charges against throe clothing manufacturing firms for breaches of the austerity clothing regulations. A similar prosecution had been made in Dunedin a few weeks a°o said Mr. Cleal, and the Magistrate there had held the regulations to be valid. The cases before the Court were the first to be brought in Auckland. j , __ , The firms prosecuted were Hugh Wright, Ltd., (Mr. Aiderton), J. Collinson, Ltd., (Mr. Goldstine) and H. C. Martin (Mr. Burst), and in each case there were two charges of making trousers with cuffs and men s coats with flaps on the pockets, buttons on the sleeves, and with pockets in excess of four on each coat. A number of tailors considered that there was no saving of material on austerity patterns, said Mr. Cleal, and had continued to make suits as before. Counsel for the defendants might try to ridicule the regulations, but the object was to avoid waste. “The regulation is a war one and therefore is more or less in the nature of a military order,” said the Magistrate. Mr. F. H. Levien. Tailors were forced to buy their material in suit lengths, said Mr. Goldstine. If the object of the regulations was, as the prosecutor had said, to avoid waste, the observance of them would achieve the very opposite. When the suit pattern was cut out from the length there were naturally odd pieces over. If the regulations were observed tailers would have to throw away these pieces. Rather than send scraps to the destructor the tailors felt it was better to use them. Inspectors had been invited to show where a saving could be effected in suits cut from material, counsel continued, but had been unable to do so. If the Court was satisfied. the regulations did not succeed in achieving the avoidance of waste which was the object for which they had been framed, then it should take this fact into consideration when fixing any penalty. Counsel for the other defendants supported Mr, Goldstine’s views that the regulations did not effect any saving of material.

Tiie Magistrate: Why is it, then, that a working man’s denims are 6/more with cuffs than without them? Mr. Goldstine: That is 6/- extra.

A dozen regulations had to be obeyed, said the Magistrate. Some people'might not like it, but it was the law. As the prosecutions were the first of their kind, however, each defendant would be fined £3 with costs.