PROFITEERING CHARGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18199, 21 March 1921, Page 5

PROFITEERING CHARGES

SALE OF A PAIR OF BOOTS. W®KE THEY SURGICAL BOOTS! (Pi* United Paca* Association.) AUCKLAND, March IS A charge of 'alleged profiteering was brought by .the Board of Trade (Mr Meredith) against Ernest E. Leaning (Mr Hail Skelton). Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr E C. Cutten, S:M„ was on the bench. Under section 32 of the Board of Trade Act defendant was charged that, at Auckland, in December, 1920, he sold to -one William Carroll one pair of hand-sewn boots at £4 19s 6d, which price, Hie information stated, was unnecessarily high. When witnesses were ordered out of court, twelve retired. Mr Skelton said that as defendant was going to show that he charged only a 10 per cent, profit on cost, ho would like to know if costs could be got against the Board of Trade. ... Mr Meredith: Wo can discuss that when you get a verdict. Mr Cutten said he would be prepared to hear argument upon that point latec Mr Skelton said that to save time defendant admitted the sale and the price. • Mr Meredith here handed up the _ boot* for the inspection of the court. He said the suggestion was that they were surgical boots, but actually tbe only difference Was that the inside was continued a little up the sides to ease the instep. Mr Skelton said the cost of those boots should have been £5 Bs. H<i claimed that 10 per cent, was the Actual profit on the charge made by defendant. Mr Meredith said ho proposed to call evidence to try and show that the profit was considerably over 100 per cent, on cost. Mr Meredith said defendant claimed to be a surgical bootmaker, but this pair could' not be claimed to be surgical ones in any way. Any bootmaker could put in a bit of. leather as stiffening. It required no special surgical skill to put that in a boot. Mr Skelton said that thousands of cripples ■were wearing boots made by defendant. Leaning was working for a number of medical men, who will be called to give evidence. Mr Meredith replied that the Government had been forced to take up the work of making surgical boots. Mr Skelton: “And were glad to come back to Leaning after three weeks.” Evidence for the prosecution was then called. One bootmaker said ho could sell the boot in question with reasonable profit at £2 5s lid per pair. Another manufacturer valued the cost of boots in question at £2 7s 10*d, and estimated the retail price 1 at £3 16s 4|<i, allowing €0 per cent, on odet for profit and other charges. After further evidence for Sie prosecution the case was adjourned. ■