EXCESSIVE PROFIT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26027, 15 December 1945, Page 6

EXCESSIVE PROFIT

IMPORTER FINED' £125 OFFENCE COMMITTED TWO YEARS AGO (P.A.) AUCKLAND. Dec. 14. “ I think the proper penalty in these cases should be approximately double the excess profit made,” said Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., to-day when convicting Matthew Smith Henderson, a managing director, on a charge of selling 1291 yards of Delhi repp, to Macky, Logan, Caldwell, Ltd., for £3BO 16s 11a, a price that was considered to be unreasonably high. Mr F. C. Henry, who appeared for the defendant, entered a plea of guilty. , , Prosecuting for the Department of Industries and Commerce, Mr Cleal said the defendant was the managing director of W. R. Kirker, Ltd., a firm of importers. As the result of a complaint received this year arising out of a sale of furnishing materials, it was ascertained that tne defendant had made a profit of 42 per cent, on goods which he had sold for £317 7s 5d (excluding sales tax) to Macky, Logan, Caldwell, Ltd., on behalf of his cpmpany in October, 1943. At that time there was no approved price for the material, but the Price Tribunal had since authorised a profit of 224 per cent. A fair and reasonable profit at the time of the sale had been estimated at 25 per cent., Mr Cleal added. In addition to the profit of 42 per cent, made by the company the defendant had received 10 per cent, commission, amounting to £3l 14s 9d. The total profit on the deal had been £69 7s 9d. Mr Henry said the offence was just over two years old and had been committed at a time when no price was fixed by the tribunal. The material had become available as the result of the keenness of the defendant's buyers in England, and, in the absence of his accountant who was serving in the armed forces, the defendant had fixed what he thought was a reasonable price for it. . xt ■ There was no question that the goods were well worth the money, counsel continued. The Crown’s evidence showed that it was the rate'of profit and not the actual price that was considered to be unreasonable. The defendant was fined £125.