Taheke Storekeepers Fined For Overcharging

Northern Advocate, 16 July 1949, Page 5

Taheke Storekeepers Fined For Overcharging

KAIKOHE, Sat. (Sp.)—Three identical charges of having displayed articles showing price overcharges were brought against each of three brothers, partners in a country store, before Mr W. C. Harley, S.M., at Kaikohe yesterday. Defendants were Ernest Carl Bott, Rex Seymour Bott and Nolan Theodore Bott, who operate a general store at Taheke, 10 miles west of Kaikohe, on the Hokianga road. Through Mr K. W. Harold, of Kaikohe, all three pleaded not guilty, but, after R. S. Bote had appeared in the witness-stand, Mr Harold sought leave of the court to change the piea to one of guilty. This was granted. The prosecution was brought by Mr H. F. Guy, of Kaikohe, acting for the Price Investigation Tribunal. His instructions, said Mr Guy, were that a woman inspector of the P.I.T. had called at the shop on February 25 and had seen the articles on the shelves of the store with incorrect price markings. v TROUSERS, VEST, SHIRT

The articles specifically complained of were a pair of men’s sports trousers, a vest and a shirt.

On the first the sale price was shown at £4/17/6, whereas the correct price should have been £3/15/6, an overcharge of £l/2/3. . An overcharge of 2/- was shown on the vest, and one of 4/7 on the shirt. Mr Harold and his witness stated that the shop’s storeroom at the back was not suitable for storage of drapery, so that the only place such goods could be stored was on the shelves. There were rats in the rear outbuLlding. Bott said that, to his knowledge, the goods were marked only with the firm’s own private cost mark, not with prices. However, besides a shirt which he had taken himself, one other shirt from the consignment of % nine had apparently been sold. The inspector had been given a free hand to go among the goods and examine what articles and markings she. wished to see. CONTROLS STILL IN FORCE

Mr Harold said it was admitted that the regulations were definite on the point that presence of goods in a shop meant that they were offered for sale and that an offer for sale was equivalent to a sale.

Mr Guy said it was hoped that the proceedings would serve as a warning to other shopkeepers that the P.I.T. regulations were still in force. He pointed out that the three brothers had taken over the shop from their father 1 , who had been in the same business for more than 20 years past, and that it was reasonable that all shopkeepers in 1949 knew their duty in regard to price ceilings. Having regard to what he termed the high costs, the magistrate fined each brother 5/- on each of his three charges and ordered him to pay, also on each charge, 7/4 court costs and 6/8 solicitor’s fees.

Thus, on the nine charges, the defendants will pay a total of £B/11/-,