“SHODDY” FOOTWEAR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19802, 29 May 1926, Page 12

“SHODDY” FOOTWEAR.

PROTECTION EOR PUBLIC. AUCKLAND BOOTMAKER FINED. (Per United Press Association.! AUCKLAND, May 24. Children’s shoes, stiffened with a composition instead of, leather, resulted in the prosecution to-day of Thomas Clark, a retail bootmaker (Mr L. P. Leary), in the Police Court before Mr F. K. Hunt. S.M. Defendant pleaded a technical breach and ignorance of the construction of the shoes. The inspector of footwear -exhibited a pair of superior finish. The outsole was substantial leather, but a dissection had revealed that beneath it was a composition of stiffening. There was no stamp on the outside to disclose the make-up of the shoes. Mr Leary said the prosecution might suggest that retailers were passing “shoddy ’ goods on to the public. Defendant's breach was inadvertent. It was difficult for a retailer to ascertain the quality of every brand of shoe he handled. The shoes under examination had been made in England. The Magistrate: He was mislead by the dealer who supplied the shoes. Mr Leary : This brand is recognised as one of the best. He exhibited a wellworn sole of the same make as the : dissected sample, and drew attention to the evidence of its good condition after use. A footwear expert said she considered the shoe was good value at 9s fid. and the brand had a , ood reputation. She herself would have no hesitation in passing the shoe as an all-leather shoe. Mr Leary said defendant had been a strong advocate for legislation to prohibit the importation of inferior footwear. He had headed a deputation to the Minister of Interna] Affairs to request that the English shoe manufacturers should be required to declare the quality of all the goods they sent into New Zealand. The Magistrate said he was bound to ensure that the public did not suffer. Defendant was fined £5.