PROFITEERING CASE.

Northern Advocate, 19 June 1920, Page 2

PROFITEERING CASE.

ALLEGED UNDUE GAIN.

IMPORTING COMPANI INDICTED.

OHBISTCHUKCH, June IS,

In the Magistrate s Court the hearing of the charge against the General Drapery'lmporting Company of New Zealand, Ltd.—the D.l.C.—of having committed the offence of profiteering by offering for sale on April 27, 1920, to George Hart Christie, a girl's rainproof .coat at a price o±* 45/, which price was unreasonably high, was continued. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was given by Christie, and for the defence by Oscar Clarence Cox, manager of the D.1.C., anad Mary Helen Wraight, head of the underclothing and children's department. The last mentioned said that _.fter she purchased this line of samples she reconditioned one of the coats. To pay its way her department should return 50 to GO per cent. on cost. They did not always get that. This range of coats had been "picked over before she purchased it. She priced the line on the accepted trade custom providing that samples were bought cheap. They were priced oa one's own judgment, bearing in mind that any other firm which had bought goods from this range of aainplcs .would have had to pay landing costs of from .0 per cent., to 55 per cent on the Home cost at the time of the order. Her object, in pricing was to give good value. She thought that in marking one coat at 45/ she was giving the public good value, and the price was fixed having regard to- the sale of the line as a

whole.

In his address to the Court Mr. Skerrett (for the defence) pointed out that this was the purchase and sale of a job lot. The selling prices had been fixed in the ordinary course of trade. What profit would be made on this line of samples was purely a matter of conjecture. It could not be determined until the last coat had 1* een sold, and possibly some would have to be sold even below cost. In fixing selling prices, regard must be had to the market value, and the risk of the non-saleability of the remaining article.-* in the line must also be considered. Unless a trader did that he would ultimately end in bankruptcy. The gross profit .on the cost, originally fixed for the whole line was 78.5 per cent. As it cost about fiO per cent, to pay the department's way only 18 per cent, was left to cover the uncertainty of sale.

The magistrate reserved his decision,