CHARGED TOO MUCH

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3250, 9 April 1943, Page 5

CHARGED TOO MUCH

PRICE ORDERS NEGLECTED

SHOPKEEPERS IN COURT

FINES EXCEEDING £BO IMPOSED

For selling goods at prices not in conformity with the price orders ■hi force under the Emergency Regulations, ten Waihi and Waihi Beach shopkeepers were fined a total of £B4 by Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., in the Waihi Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday. Goods concerned in the' charges were onions, salt, rice, treacle, tinned soup, candies, nails and chocolate. All defendants, who were represented by either Mr F. C. V. Clark or Mr H. L. Boughton, pleaded guilty.

Statement by Prosecution

Before proceeding with individual cases, Mr H. T. Gillies, of Hamilton, who appeared for the prosecution, said it might be as well for him to make a general statement. There were, he said, several charges in respect to the sale of rice, and since the price order had been issued there had been an acute shortage, with tne result that rice was not available to retailers in bag lots and had. to be purchased in smaller quantities, so that profits had been greatly reduced. The department was not pressing for heavy penalties in these cases. Mr Gillies added that it did not seem to be as generally known as it should be that price orders must be prominently displayed by shopkeepers so that people could see what the charges for goods should be without having to ask. Prominent display of such orders was important in the interests of both the public and the shopkeeper. “Desire to Observe Orders” Mr Boughton, said he thought there was a general desire on the part of business-people to observe the orders, and the fact that there had been a breach did not mean that they were guilty of. profiteering. It was often difficult for shopkeepers to keep m touch with current price orders.

In answer to the magistrate, Mr Boughton said that not all of ■ those prosecuted were members of a trade association, and he had advised those who were not to join for their own protection. So far as the sales of onions were concerned, the retailers had bought at a price that did not allow Of excessive profit, although It did not comply with the order. The Magistrate: If they all acted together they would force the wholesale price down. 1 Mr Gillies said it was to prevent the establishment of black markets in New Zealand that the regulations had been framed.

Vagueness About Prices Mr Clark said he personally knew all of the 'defendants, and knew them to be thoroughly honest and respectable people, who were not profiteers, and who genuinely wanted to observe the law. In these circumstances, there must be some reason for their offence; and it seemed to him that the answer was that there was a time-lag between the issuing of price orders and their reaching the people concerned. He did not say that that was the fault of the Government, but he did say, that when people of the class df defendants were before the court it pointed to some difficulty .in obtaining the proper prices. He had advised non-mem-bers to join their association, but even so there seemed to be a timelag. ■ Counsel suggested that as these were the first cases that had been brought in Waihi some leniency should be shown. The magistrate said he would deal first with the cases of those who had sold onions at more than the fixed price. “So far as onions are concerned,” he said, “the price of vegetables fluctuates very considerably, and if a retailer finds that the price order is 6d and he cannot buy at that price he should leave them alone, otherwise a position similar to that in other countries and refererd to -by Mr Gillies will arise. Duty of Business-people Mr Freeman said that, speaking generally, if a person was in’ business it was his duty to know ’what prices were fixed, and it was absolutely necessary for the protection of the public that such prices should be adhered to. Unfortunately, human nature being what it was, there was a tendency, particularly in war-time, for shopkeeprs to err in their own favour; but they should make it their business to find out what prices were allowed by law, and not to exceed them. Small increases might not seem much in themselves, but in the aggregate they amounted to a great dealj and if allowed to continue would mean that wages would have to be increased and the whole economic structure upset. In fixing the penalties, he would take into consid-

eration the fact that there would be "court costs and solicitor’s fee £1 Ils 6d in each case. Offenders and Fines

Those fined, the amounts which they were fined and the goods concerned, were:—Catherine Anne Mullins: £lO (prepared soup). James Learmonth: £lO (tin treacle); £2 10s (rice). Wallace Supplies, Ltd., No’s. 1 and 2 shops: £2 10s each shop (rice). George Francis French: £5 (packet candles); £3 (onions); £lO (tin of salt). D. L. Lamplugh: £2 10s (chocolate). King Joe: £3 (onions). Ah Wong: £3 (onions). Herbert Ernest Raffell: £lO (prepared salt). Edward George Brown: £lO (tin salt). George Irvine: £lO (nails).