A PROFITEERING BUTCHER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17936, 15 May 1920, Page 10

A PROFITEERING BUTCHER

FINES OJi" £1000. '"I WILL PAY NOW." "'lt is tlio worst oaso of tlie kind that lias come beloro this court," deoliued tlio iiupwidiary Ai iigistra/fce (Mr Bouiwuout Morioej, 111 commenting upon tho oonchict, of a U-iiuliorU meat divilef, who cJiiiw beloro him early in Alitroh to answer H) summonses lor willing pigs at prioes in oxoesa of tlio amount wiliicm couLd lw lawfully ohaxgod. 'iho deie-ndant was Arthur W. Barker, wholesale butciior, St. Joweu' Market, a and tlio tinea whicU wore imposed totalled ui ail to JJIOOO. iku-lajr pleuxltxl guilty, Mr J. U. UuJitcr, the Deputy Town Clerk, who pi-osoouted, explained tiio naUwe 01 tlio oiieuccu, w-niou were in contravention of the P.gs (Maximum Prioes) Order, 19J.U. J lie liist u ufi far failing to keep occura.te records of nct'uaaary particulars oi tlio sales of pigii, as required by the order, mid tho other j.l) referred to transactions jn which the defendant had sold to retail 'butchers in excess of Uio maximum prices allowed by the order.

On January 8 an inspector went to tlio defendant's premises, .barker having promised to have his staff roady for inspection. When ho asked for a certain book, the defendant said he had not got it, and added : "Oh! What's the use? lam going to plead guilty." Tho book was produced, liowover, and in it was a rocord of 26 transactions wliioli took place in Deccm-ber. lit (Mr (I'untor) produoed a list of tlie transactions, but he pointed out that the reoords wece incomplete. In no caso was any date of the transactions given, and in several cases no weight was mentioned, and ill one case the price at which the nig was sold was not given. The defendant's excuse for failure to enter some of the transactions was thai he did not enter cash sales. If necessary he (Mr Guntor) would have been able to show that twice tne number oi timeaotions to those involved in the stuni.l onsos had taken place.

EXCESS' CHAICGB OF £180. Burker had slaughtered 175 pigs at the St. dames' slaughter-house, and these entries relerred bo t)0 of them, the remainder bad not been entered at all. Tho transactions which wore the subject of the summonses had been got oait, and tho excess in the prices at whioh tlie pago had been sold to the retail butcher varied from £1 to £30 on each. On the total of the 60 pigs there was an illegal excess chargo of £180. Continuing. Mr G-unter said it was regarded as one of tho most serious breaches of the Food Control orders that could conic before tlie court. It seemed a caso in which nothing oould be said in extenuation of the offences. Tho defendant could not plead lack of knowledge of the order. He had been very astute, along with some of the purchasers, in trying to avoid being caught in the illegal aot. The first weei; in December it becamo known that tho butchers in the city had decidcd to defy the order and' sell at over the maximum price. liie Food Control authorities caused the

butchcrs in general to be circularised, and they wero warned of the probablo effect of their action, but notwithstanding the defendant infringed the order, and had taken certain precautions to avoid being caught. His could prove, if necessary, that a receipt had been given for the proper amount allowed by the or3er, when, in faofc. he (defendant) had received a sum much in excess of that amount. As an instance, Mr Guntcr alluded to the sale of a pig to James Tlamer for £24 6s, where a receipt was given by Barker for £18. Hamer demanded, however, a receipt for the full amount. It was, declared Mr Gunter, a deliberate broach of the order, showing an absolute defiance of the circular sent out by the Live Stock Commissioner to warn them. Ho was instructed to press the cose to tho uttermost, and to ask for a heavy penalty. "ATn UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE." In conclusion Mr- Gunter alluded to what he described as. an unfortunate circumstance in the oase. The defendant, he 6aid, through the Wholesale Butchers' Association, had sent a petition to the Lord Mayor

of the city with a view, to stifling these proceedings. That seemed to be a very improper thing to do, having regard to tho fact that tho Lord Mayor was the chief magistrate of tho city, but he (the Lord Mayor) very properly took no notice of the Mr Eldred Oliver submitted that there were extenuating circumstances. As had been shown, there were records for every one of the transactions which were the subject of the summonses. The Benoh would realise, he said, that farmers and wholesale butchers were not versed in the methods of bookkeeping, and it was only by the passing of one of the Acts in relation to income tax that men in defendant's position were called upon to keep books at all. The defendant admittedly had not entered the necessary things required by the order. That was because ne (defendant) had never read the order. Though that was perhaps not in his favour, it was a fact, and he did not exactly know what was required of him. Ho had been a wholesale butcher for 20 years. It was only fair to say that the retail butchers who bought the pigs did not object to the prices triey paid. The Stipendiary Magistrate: We have nothing to do with that. ALLEGATION AGAINST BUTCHERS. Mr Oliver, continuing, alleged that there was no doubt the butchers throughout tho land had been doing that kind of thing., and their chief reason for doing so was to supply a- public want. It could not bo denied that some profit had been made, but he suggested that the profit on each pig had been under £3. That being so, Mir Oliver asserted that it could not be argued that it had been done with the sole purpose of profiteering. The Magistrate:, I am not dealing with profiteering. Mr Oliver: We must have regard to-the motive of tlio infringement of the order. The Magistrate: The motive is to make money. Mr Oliver replied that the profit was so small that he did not think it warranted that imputation. It was only fair to the butchers to add that the petition to the Ixird Mayor was suggested at the butchers' annual dinner.

In conclusion, Mr Oliver reminded the Bench £iiat the offences were committed during tho Christmas season, when the wholesalers were being constantly bombarded by retntlers to get more meat. The crux of tho whole matter was, in fact, that those who bred pigs would not sell them at the control price. The Magistrate: We havo nothing to do with that.

Air OTIvor: I agree. The chief desire of tho retail butchers was to supply a public wanT.

NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. The Stipendiary Magistrate, addressing fhe defenc!ahC said: " The only consideration in this case has been whether, or not, I should send you to prison without the option of the fine. It is the worst case of tho kind that has come before this court. I cannot see in this case anv sign of any mitigating circumstance whatever. You have, by your action, put the retail butchers in a very difficult position." At times, went on the magistrate, persons had been brought before the court who had tried to excuse themselves—it was no excuse—by saying that they had to pay higher than the maximum prices fixed by the order to those from whom they got the goods. The order was clear, and its object was that there should be a proper distribution throughout tho country, and that no one person should be able to got benefit hv giving a higher price. The very object of the order was to prevent that kind of thing. It was true that many people about Christmas time showed anxiety to get more, and for that purpose some of them might havo paid excessive prices. Tlie defendant received a warning in December, but he chose to ignore it and defy the food authorities. In conclusion, the Stipendiary Magistrate added: "You upset tho whole system on which the question'of food control is based, and if that is allowed it would be impossible to regulate the food supply of the comr rnunity at all" A fine of £50 was imposed in each of the 20 summonses, bringing tho total fine to £ICOO. and 25 guineas costs were also allowed. Tlio alternative was seven days' imprisonment in each case. When asked whether he wanted time to pay, the defendant replied, " I will pay now."