PROFITEERING

Grey River Argus, 13 December 1940, Page 10

PROFITEERING

Christchurch Fines CHRISTCHURCH, December 12. 'The first prosecutions for selling articles at a higher price than was asked a year ago, without the authority of the Price Fixation Tribunal, were heard by Mr H. A. Young, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr A. W. Brown, Cfown Solicitor, prosecuted,. \ It was alleged that breaches had been committed of Regulation 5 of the Price Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, 1939. The defendants, with their solicitors, and the items sold, were as follows:— P. F. Mann, Ltd (Mr W. R. Lascelles), hacksaw blades, at 3d a dozen more; W. L. King (Mr W. R. Lascelles), a lock, for 8s 6d instead of 7s 6d; A. J. White,’Ltd. (Dr. A. L. Haslam), three hatchets, each at 6d more; T. Armstrong and Company, Ltd. (Mr J. H. Upham), a fishmonger’s apron at Ils 6d instead of 8s 6d; E. Reece Ltd. (Mr E. A. Lee), a threefoot rule, for 4s instead of 3s 6d. Each defendant pleaded guilty. Mr Brown said that an offence occurred whenever a price was put up without the authority of the Price Tribunal. There was no doubt that everyone was faced with increased charges, and they could apply to the tribunal for a permit to make up for them. All the firms concerned were highly reputable and Mr Brown understood it was a general principle with them to sell goods to the public as cheaply as practicable. They were not the only firms who had been committing technical offences; there were others undetected. It was pleasing to know now that there was a Price Committee being set up by- city firms to assist in having the regulations effected fairly, and the process of making applications would be simplified. “It is not precisely profiteering, as each firm can show that costs, charges, duties, and overhead have all gone up,” Mr Brown concluded. A heavy penalty was therefore not sought; there would probably be no need for further prosecutions. Mr W. R. Lascelles, for his defend-

ants, admitted that the application for a permit had been overlooked, end said that a rise in prices would have been authorised had application been made. Mr E. A. Lee said that in Reeces’ case inspectors had spent three afternoons investigating an application for small increases. The machinery for dealing with applications was now more satisfactory. Dr. Haslam said that the landed cost of A. J. White’s hatchets had gone up, but they sold very quickly before application for a permit was made. Mr Upham said: “Take pins alone. Dozens of kinds come in and each shipment has a dicerent price. Out of thousands of lines dealt in by Armstrongs, they picked one on which the net profit is 41d.” Not one retail shop could have avoided breaking the regulations, Mr Upham said. To have complied with the law would have meant shutting up shop. The Magistrate said that technical offences only had been committed, and there was no suggestion of profiteering. The defendants were liable te a fine of £lOO, or three months’ imprisonment, but a nominal fine would be sufficient. Each firm was fined £2, ordered to pay costs, 10s, and solicitor’s fee £2