MUTTON BIRD SALES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27212, 15 October 1949, Page 9

MUTTON BIRD SALES

BREACHES OF PRICE CONTROL WELLINGTON FIRMS CHARGED Special Correspondent „ WELLINGTON, Oct. 14. * “ Someone in the Price Tribunal evidently thinks it is a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi to prosecute a Maori for a breach of the regulations,” said Mr W. E. Leicester in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. Mr Leicester was appearing for the Wellington, Trawling Company, a local wholesale firm charged with selling 567 uncooked mutton birds at 2s 4d each when the controlled price was 2s. Referring to .the activities of those who catch the birds, Mr Leicester said: “If steps were taken to enforce the regulations at the source of supply the court would probablv not be troubled with prosecutions of this nature.” The firm for which he acted would be glad to dispense with the mutton bird side of its business, but there was a demand for the birds and it was necessary for business purposes to adhere to this seasonal trade. However, they were anxious to keep within the regulations. The charge of 2s 4d represented, in fact, a margin of 4d over the actual price which it paid. This was the margin allowed. Three charges of selling a total of 1814 uncooked mutton birds, also at 2s 4d, were heard against Fishermen’s Co-operative. Ltd. Mr W. R. Birks said it was the first time a wholesaler had been brought before the court in Wellington for overcharging for them. He had been instructed to ask for a refund, but as he understood the retailers to whom the birds had been sold had resold them at a higher price and were being prosecuted independently in their home towns perhaps it was a case where a refund should not be made, as it would only go into the pockets of the retailers. Mr J. W. P. Watts, for the defendants. said they had had to purchase at a higher price than that legally chargeable to them. They had purchased 10.000 birds from a firm in the south for Is lid a bird. The maximum that could have been charged was Is Bd. The defendants also incurred freight and other charges amounting to something like ljd on each bird, so that the actual profit was 3d a bird. Out of this handling charges had to come. , The profit per bird was well within the limit contemplated by the Price Tribunal so there was no suggestion of profiteering in the normal serlse.

Both firms pleaded guilty and each was fined £4.