ALLEGED PROFITEERING

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLI, Issue XLI, 7 May 1921, Page 5

ALLEGED PROFITEERING

A PAIR OF BOOTS.

INFORMATION DISMISSED.'

( (BY TELEGRAPH —fBRSP ASSOCIATION » AUCKLAND, May 6. Reserved decision was given to-day by Mr Cutten, S.M., in the case in which E.E. Leaning was charged with selling a pair of boots at the price of £4 19s 6d, which was alleged to be unreasonably high. Mr Cutten said the real defence was that the cost of making the boots was nigh, because the defendant made individual pairs of boots, usually to order and to produce a good result he used expensive materials, and selected only the. best portions, of'leather, involving a great deal of waste; also that highly-paid men were employed, and from.the circumstances of his business were not kept fully employed, again involved a great deal of waste. Finally, his work was for the most part hand work, which, from the point of v*ew of cost, was at a great disadvantage compared with the modern methods of manufacture. ' _ A most curious feature about the defence was a claim by defendant that he would be justified in charging a very high price for the boots in question because they were surgical boots, Tvhich required great skill to make, but these were not made for the purchaser's feet. They were a pair of stock boots. Defendant's contention that, though they were made for/stock there was a remote chance of/selling the boots was a fair ground for charging- a, high price, and this certainly gave considerable weight to the con- j teritibti of the informant that defend-1 ant would never have"been such a fool 'j as to make these boots for stock purposesy—that they were, in fact, a pair of misfits, and a small amount of deviation from the normal enabled him to sell them to a customer who was not suffering from a fallen arch,, but whose measure fairly corresponded to the make of these boots.

His Worship said the.main question was what such boots would cost to manufacture. It'was stated by a witness that the boots could be made at a factory and sold retail at a very little over half the price charged by defendant. Such evidence, however, could only make a prima facie case, and would be answered by defendant as to the actual cost under his system. Disallowing all items of costs which should be disallowed, and making reductions in other items, the items remaining add up to a sum which, if increased by the addition of a .profit not unreasonably high, will reach the vicinity of the price charged. The information was dismissed.