PROFITEERING IN VASELINE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XLIV, Issue 14704, 3 June 1920, Page 1

PROFITEERING IN VASELINE.

(Per Press Association.') HAWERA, June 2. -In the case againse George Tait, chemist, charged with making an unreasonable profit from the sale of a fourounce pot of Cheeseborough vaseline, at fifteenpence, further evidence was given by the secretary of the Friendlv Societies' Dispensary, who stated tkat last year's return was unsatisfactory. Two grocers also gave evidence as to their dealings in vaseline. The Board of Trade's local representative stated that a fortnight ago one chemist reduced the price of vaseline to a shilling. Previously all had been selling at fifteenpence. •". Hubert Stark, accountant, said that he had made up Tait's profit and loss trading account. The return on the capital invested was not, in his opinion, unreasonably high. It was more a return for skill than for a. capital return. It was low taking all the circumstances into consideration* ' George Tait, defendant, said that the business, was carried on by his father for 29 years: . He went to camp in .} anuary, 1917, and in February, 1919, he returned. When he returned he found his father was carrying on temporarily in the premises and doing the dispensing alone. Later they rebuilt with three brothers in the business..- In November, 1919, 'he and . his brother took over from, their father. A lump sum of £BOO was paid for the The goodwill, lease and book debts of the business were a present from his father. He valued the goodwill at least at £4OO. When taking oyer there were one and a-half dozen pots of vaseline, -A half-pound of this were left. Now the output would be about two dozen a year.. The bottle produced was from the stock taken over. There was every possibility that the bottle sold to Chappie had been through the fire. He could give absolutely no idea of what •was paid for the vaseline before the war. A four ounce pot cost, a shilling. The cost to the chemist could not be lower than 6s 6d a dozen before the war. In charging Is 3d he was not over-charging, nor would . it be too ; much to ask Is 6d. Robert Tait, father .of defendant, said that he could not tell what price he had paid for vaseline. In selling to his sons he had roughly estimated the value of the stock. No stock lists were made out. The estimate would •be correct within £SO. George Duncan Law, first assistant to another chemist, stated that he had previously worked for a chemist in. Lyttelton. Witness had sold large' pots of vaseline there at Is 3d. He considered it quite a fair price-; thatwas a general opinion. In' saying this he had regard to the primary law of chemists not to split threepenny bits. The Magistrate intimated that he j would give his derision in writing. j