“ML THAT GLITTERS”

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11226, 3 June 1922, Page 9

“ML THAT GLITTERS”

UNUSUAL CASE IN COURT SECOND-HAND DEALER'S FALSE DECLARATION. xJRASS CHAIN SOLD FOR GOLD. "A bargain—solid gold chain, 18c, weight 2ioz." Wien the above advertisement appeared in a second-hand dealer's window, placed delicately alongside a chain which, in actual fact, was really "solid brass," it tempted a pedestrian to seek its possession, and the transaction, duly effected, left the passer-by elated at his "bargain," until an expert jeweller, in casting a professional eye over the chain, declared it to be "solid brass.” Then, realising probably that there was something in the old maxim "all that glitters is not gold," the purchaser laid gn information to the police, proceedings being ventilated before Mr F. K. Hunt. S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The defendant in the action was Mrs Theresa Sternberg, a second-hand dealer carrying on business at Manners street, and she was proceeded against for selling to John Thompson one brass watch chain to which was applied a false trade description, to wit, the mark "18c," this being contrary to sub-eection 2 of section 82 of the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1808. AN UNUSUAL CASE. "This is an unusual ease,” said Chief Detective Kemp, "and is taken particularly as a warning to shopkeepers who sell such lines, that they must have them accurately described. I may say that this is the first time that such a >ase has been taken in New Zealand." BOUGHT FOR A POUND. The chief detective went on to say that the defendant had hitherto proved very satisfactory in the conduct of her establishment. On April 18th last, a person brought the chain into her shop and asked a pound for it. The chain weighed 2Joz and had| a sovereign attached to it. The defendant decided to purchase the article at the price asked, and it changed hands. Two days later the little chain appeared in the’ window beside a placard which stated that the chain -vat a "bargain," was "solid gold," "18 carat," and weighing 2i ounces." Mr Thompson happened to he passing, and noticing the fine array df pure yellow 18 carat gold, as he thought, decided to negotiate for "possession, and this he did, eventually purchasing the chain for the sum of £ll. "18 CARAT BRASS.” However, the purchaser later became suspicious of the intrinsic value of his newly-acquired jewellery, and sought expert opinion, when he learned that instead of being gold it was “pure brass.” He had been given a receipt stating that the article was "18 carat gold." Naturally peeved, the man had sought the solicitations of the police office, and a summons was issued. Referring to the section of the Aot under which the action was taken, Mr Kemp said that the onus was cast on dealers that the goods must he what they axe said to be. The prosecution was taken more with the idea of letting these people know their obligations in marking goods. for sale. The defendant -was liable under summary conviction to a fine of .£2O, in default four months’ imprisonment. The magistrate: Ton see, people are often "had" but don’t tell anyone, and therefore the dealer often scores. Chief Detective Kemp stated that defendant had conducted her shop to the satisfaction of the police previously. She was a young married woman, and was |not flourishing in business. It was the first case of its kind in New Zealand, and he felt dealers and the public B®nerally would benefit by the publicity of the proceedings. A FINE IMPOSED. The defendant said she had purchased the chain quite innocently, paying the amount that was asked for it. She quite believed it to be what she had stated on the placard in the ■ window. "If it had not been for the fact that you are not in flourishing circum- - stances and could not -afford to pay a heavy amount, I would fine you the maximum,-” said the magistrate. A ‘ fine of 40s was imposed, the property to be confiscated, it being stated that the £ll had already been refunded.