RATIONED CLOTHING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25566, 20 June 1944, Page 6

RATIONED CLOTHING

COUPONS NOT DEMANDED CHARGES AGAINST SHOPKEEPERS The first charges to be heard in Dunedin in connection with breaches the rationing regulations came before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the City Police Court yesterday. Sydney Cooper Jenkinson and William Duncan McKenzie, men’s outfitters, for whom Mr I B Stevenson appeared, each pleaded not guilty to a charge of having failed to ask for coupons when purchases were made from them of articles'which required the surrender of coupons. Sergeant Conway conducted the cases for the police. William Lester McGregor, rationing inspector, employed by the Ministry of Supply, said he visited the shop of the defendant Jenkinson and purchased a scarf. After receiving change from Jenkinson, he stepped back from the counter and announced himself as an inspector. Jenkinson appeared excited, he said, and explained that he did not think coupons were required for scarves. Asked by Mr Stevenson if this was the first action which the inspector had taken, the witness said that officers of his department had spent some time in Oamaru. “ Did you have any success there? ’’ Mr Stevenson asked. The witness said that he had had some success. Under Mental Stress “ When you called a few days later, did Jenkinson tell you * that, only a few moments before your original visit, he had received some unfortunate family news? ’’ asked Mr Stevenson. “ Yes,” replied the witness. " Did you advise the heads of your department in Wellington of this additional information? ” Mr Stevenson continued. The witness replied that he had sent only the original report. " It is appreciated that the regulations must be complied with,” Mr Stevenson said, “ but they must be interpreted reasonably or they become the means not of prosecutions, but persecutions. The defendant is aged 67 years and this Is the first time he has been in court. He had had no scarves in his shop for more than 12 months and the one which he sold to the inspector was the first that he had had on hand in that time. The hand book produced by the inspector is a jumble of the names of articles and the coupons required, but there is no semblance of alphabetical order in the lists. There seems to have been some justification for Jenkinson’s mistake when it is realised that he had received such unfortunate news only a few minutes prior to the inspector’s visit.” In evidence, Jenkinson said that he was bewildered and was suffering from mental stress when the inspector came to his shop. He had written to the Rationing Controller in Wellington explaining all the circumstances, but had had no reply. Completion of Transaction Giving evidence in the case against McKenzie, Mr McGregor said that he had purchased a pair of socks from the firm of Hamel and McKenzie. After he had received his change he had stepped back from the counter and had pointed out to McKenzie that he was an inspector. McKenzie had said that he “ had something on his mind ” at the time he sold the socks. Questioned by Mr Stevenson, the Inspector said that he had asked McKenzie: “ Shouldn’t you have asked for a coupon?” McKenzie had replied: "Yes, I made a mistake.” The inspector then said: “ It’s too late; I’m an inspector.” In evidence, McKenzie said that hewas attending to other matters in the shop while serving the inspector. Without going away from the counter, the inspector said: “ Shouldn’t you have asked me for a coupon? ” The witness had replied: “Yes, I’m sorry; that will be one coupon, please.” The Inspector had then said: “It’s too late now; I’m an inspector.” Mr Stevenson contended that no offence had. been committed In the case of McKenzie, because the mere fact that the inspector had received his change for the money which he had tendered for the article did not mean that tire transaction was ’concluded. It was still 'open for McKenzie to ask for a coupon, and he could have done this at any time while the inspector was in the shop. Convictions Entered The magistrate held that the transaction between the inspector and McKenzie must reasonably be deemed to have been completed when the goods and the change were handed over to the inspector. With regard to Jenkinson, h-b held that the matter was at an end when the defendant advised the inspector that he did not think a - coupon was necessary for scarves. This factor must be considered irrespective of any other circumstances. Each defendant was convicted and fined £2, with costs.