PROFITEERING CHARGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17486, 2 June 1920, Page 6

PROFITEERING CHARGE.

-CASE • AGAINST CHEMIST. '|fp the PRICE OF VASELINE, j|| •''¥ I PROSECUTION IX HAWERA. |||; [by fICELECBiPH.— ASSOCIATION-] j HAWERA, Tuesday. |p-| A charge of having sold a pot of va»« \ \ line at a price that was unreasonably high within the meaning attached to that word by the Board of Trade Art was brought against George C. Tait, chT.ist, before Mr. Bailey, .11., to-day. Th# : | alleged offence consisted of selling a pot V.j of Chseseborough vaseli'ie at fifteen pence. "*C I A plea of not guilty was entered. Mr. Billing?, wb> prosecuted, contended that, the pries of an article must not only produce a profit that was not | unreasonably high, but mast not, ba cal- .% | culated to produce more than a reasonable ■v J rata of commercial profit. He asked that the article be considered alone, cot with J| what the merchant or vendor was making 3gjj on other arlicles. Counsel contended that vg* it was not a question of what profit was |g,: | made in tho business as a wncle, but what | the seller was making on a particular article. That position was supported by the purposes of the Agt, which.were to *|||j regulate and control the cost of In ic.j- *o|| If the price was calculated to yield a ; ||i large profit it was unreasonably high, and || each particular line should be considered tyi by itself. |i| The magistrate stated that in trade the U| prices could not be definitely fixed. Some gs articles turned over rapidly. In other -35J cases an article ra not sold once in six months. Five per cent, might be a fair af profit on a line turned over every day. Twenty per cent, might not be a large profit on other lines rarely demanded , Mr Billings agreed that a uniform r-,1 profit could not be filed. The wholesale cost of vaseline differed. He suggested - ; .v that 87 per cent. was an unreasonably high profit. He could show that other :f ; chemists were selling the line at one -.4 shilling, a grocer at ons shilling, and another grocer at tenpence. § Charles Chappie, cheese factory man- h ager, of Whareroa, gave evidence as to purchasing a pot of vaseline, containing > four ounces, at Tait's shop for fifteen .5 pence. He later found he oould have | bought it at a grocers shop for tenpence. Another chemist was selling it at one shilling. He had inquired because he J thought Tait's price particularly high. 5 Mr. Richardson, chemist in charge of | the Friendly Societies' shop, said he had A charged one shilling for a similar pot j for the past six months. The cost had been 7s 2d to 8s per dozen in Wellington. J Ha had to pay freight. He was satisfied | with the profit he made by selling at one (shilling. There was no recognised way ( j ' of fixing prices among business people « 1 Cross-examined, witness said his cis- ,• ■ pensary claimed to be a non-profit making || ■ concern, run for the benefit of United ij Friendly Societies. He sold to tie general || public but did not ester for them primar- , ily. He would not necessarily bo satis- j Tied, if the business were ion on his own account, with the same prfcfits as the J society was satisfied wilh. l In chemists £ 1 shops they did not split three pence. , ;t| This was" the universal practice. A I chemist could not compete in the same lines "with a grocer. A chemist assis- 11 tant, owinr to his professional qualifica- | tions required higher pay than a grocer's || assistant. §

The hearing had not concluded when the Court adjourned.