PROFITEERING CHARGES.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 154, 15 June 1920, Page 5

PROFITEERING CHARGES.

THE A I,ARM CLOCK CASES

CANTERBURY’ FIRMS IN COURT

Christchurch. June 14

The charges instigated by the Prue Investigation Tribunal against several commercial firms came on for hearing before Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. Hastie, Bull and Pickering, of Christchurch. were charged with having sold George Hart Christie, the Price - Investigation Tribunal’s investigating officer, a Big Ben alarm clock at the price of 25.'- which was unreasonably high. Similar charges wore heard against the following Christchurch firms:—G. W. Drayton and Co. Ltd., Mason Struthers and Co., Ltd . and E. Reece, Ltd The offences were alleged to have occurred on April 20. . A. J. White. Ltd., were charged with offering for sale on the date mentioned a Big Ben alarm clock at 25/-. The Drapery Importing Company of Christchurch were charged with having offered for sale on April 27 to George Hart Christie a coat at 45/-, which price was unreasonably- high. Brown and Duncan. Ltd., of Wellington, were charged with having unlawfully counselled another person, Hastie. Bull and Pickering, Ltd., on March 1. tr» commit an offence und'u section 32 of the Board of Trade Act, 1919. bv advising Hastie, Bull and Pickering, Ltd., to offer for sale alarm clocks at a price which is unreasonably high. Brown and Duncan were charged also with similar offences on the sanidate, it being alleged they- asked and advised A. Minson, of Christchurch, to offer alarm clocks at an unreasonably high price. Air. AV. C. AlacGregor. Dunedin, and Air. A. T. Donnelly anpeared for the Crown. Sir John Findlay appeared alone for Reece, Ltd., Air. Skerreic appeared alone for Drayton’s and they appeared jointly for A. J. White. Hastie, Bull and Pickering and Alasoii Struthers. The case against Hastie. Bull and Pickering was taken first. Air. .MacGregor, opening for the Crown, said in addition to local cases there were two charges against Brown and Duncan, who controlled the trade in the Big Ben alarm clocks in the Dominion, of counselling and procuring sale at unreasonably «>>gh prices. He defined the Act, and sails for its purpose a price was unreasonable if it produced more than a fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit. The purchasing and selling -prices and profit in each case were as follows :—Alason. Struthers 12'-. 25 -. 108 per cent.; Hastie, Bull and Pickering, the same: A. .1. White. 78 per cent.: Reece. Ltd., 15'9 25/-, 68 per cent.; Drayton’s 14 3. 25 -. 75 per cent.

Sir John Findlay, for the defen -c contended that the profit made now on the sale, of clocks was less than before the war. and lie mentioned that the average net profits of hardware merchants during period 1911-19 were. 7J per cent. Counsel, he concluded, were not present- to meet this case alone, but to fight for an important comnierct:.! principle. They contended that ro extend section 31 would kill business, and it should find no acceptance from his AVorship, hut a broad and fair viewshould be taken of the whole of the circumstances