SHOPKEEPERS FINED

Putaruru Press, Volume XVII, Issue 1039, 1 July 1943, Page 3

SHOPKEEPERS FINED

BREACHES OF PRICE ORDER a Clothing Sorted Out i A tour through the district by Price Tribunal Officers in March last had a sequel in the Putaruru i Magistrate’s Court on Monday when , j a number of Putaruru and district , shopkeepers were proceeded against ■ for alleged breaches. In most cases i the over-prices were on articles of : clothing. ' , Mr W. A. Clarke laid information against B Bradshaw with having' sold a man’s vest to Inspector J. L. ' 1 Wylie a'- a price, not in conformity 1 j, with the price order, and with hav--1 j ing sold a pair of men’s hose to Inspector Wylie at a. price also not in ■.conformity with the price order. Mr j J Gillies, of Hamilton, was the Crown | |. prosecutor [ j Mr J. Grahame, on behalf of Mrs i j B. Bradshaw, pointed out that the j j summons was made out to B. Bradj shaw, and he was overseas. The | charge »was withdrawn. I Mr J. 8.. Lavin, of the Price | Tribunal, informed against W. I [ Chang for having .sold kumeras, and, i | not having a price order displayed in I. the shop where the kumeras were j for sale, as they came under the j iprice order. Accused pleaded guilty. Mr J. R O. Lochhead appeared for accused. Mr Lochhead pointed out that the. j charge was only for failing to display a price order. Being an alien j accused did not understand that this was necessary The Magistrate remarked that 99 j per cent, of those whp came before j the Court did not understand. He |; convicted and fined Chang £2 and j 10s costs. I W. Ewart, a draper, of Putaruru, |’ was charged with having sold to Inspector Wylie a pair -of women’s bloomers for a price not in conform- j lty with the price order, and with ' having also sold to the inspector a j woman’s opera top vest for' a price j I not in conformity with the price | order. Mr Freeman fined the ac- ' cused £lO, 10s Court costs and £1 Its fxl solicitor's; fee on each charge. Mr. Ewart was not present in Court j but a letter was received from him. jF. W.~ Muir, of' Tirau, was charged j with having sold to Inspector Wylie |i a pair of men’s ribbed underpants J,] for a price not in conformity with the price order. Mr Grahame ap- e peared for' accused and pleaded guilty Mr Gillies said that all the accused’s- prices were above the cor- i rect price. Mr Grahame pointed out that accused' had recently bought the business and’ had boughtthe stock at a .price off the other man’s invoices. >, The prices were those at which the : original shopkeeper had sold the articles. Accused was- convicted and ( fined £5, 10‘s- costs and £1 11s 6d ! solicitor’s fee C. Ptewett. men’; draper, was charged with having sold! to Inspector Wylie a pair of black and [grey hose at: a price not in conformity with the. price order, and with having sold to the inspector a pair K»f natural worsted trousers for s. price not in conformity with the price order. He was also charged with failing to display a price order list.

Mr J R O. Lochhead acted on behalf of Trewett. Mr Gillie s said two inspectors had gone over the stock, and had found several articles not price marked. They had queried re the price of these, hut accused would not state the price, saying that the articles new stock and he had not yet received the invoices. Mr Lochhead pointed out that the smaller sizes of the hose were under priced This was because Mr Prew:ett had not dealt in the make before, and was not sure of the prices.

Accused was fined £lO, 10s costs and £1 11s 6d solicitor’s fee on each of the first two charges, and £2, 10s costs and £1 11s 6d solicitor’s fee on the third charge.

i Rose Bros., Ltd., of Tirau, were charged with having sold to Inspector Wylie a pair of boy’s school hose at a price not in conformity with the price orde, and with also .having sold to the inspector a pair of boy’ s golf hose at a price not in .conformity with the price order. Ac,cured pleaded guilty. Mr Gillies stated that a price [ order was on display, but apparently nobody bothered to look to it . Mr Rose stated that labour was hard to get, and he had had a busy and a hard time. However he knew he was in the wrong, so could do nothing but plead guilty. The firm- was fined £lO, 16s costs and £1 11s 6d solicitor’s fee on the first charge, and £lO, 10s costs ,ard £1 11s ©d fee in the second charge.

J. A. Halkett, Ltd., was charged with having sold to Inspector Wylie one pair of men’s ribbed underpants , at a price not in conformity with “ the price order, and with having sold to the inspector a pair of girl’« gym hose also at a price not in conformity with the price order Mr. J. Grahame acted on behalf of the ’ <acct«sed and pleaded not guilty. 1 Mr Grahame pointed out that the • inspector had not entered- the shop 1 the day named by Mr Gillies. Mr • ( Gillies corrected this, and admitted ■ jlthat it was a mistake. Mr Grahame • .then po'nted out that other people tcould make mistakes as well. The Magistrate remarked that the wrong date was only a technic ali’y. Mr Grahame retorted that so was Mr. -Halkett’s mistake. Mr Gillies denied this emphatically. He ’ said Mr Grahame was definitely wrong. The prosecutions were not trivialities. Mr Grahame then showed Mr Gil- ; (lies and the Magistrate two bills j (from two different- firm s showing j (different prices for the same article. )t ‘The Magistrate remarked that it j (did not matter what the shopkeeper jbought the articles for, it was what they sold them at. Accused was fined £lO, 10s costs and £1 11s 6d on each charge, i W K'vell was charged with having [■sold to Inspector Wylie a pair of boy’s golf hose at a price not in conformity with the price order and with also having sold to the. inspector a pair of natural worsted trousers (men’s) for a price not in conformity with the price order. Mr Gra■ihame acted on .behalf of accused, j,and pleaded not guilty , The inspector remarked that these, were the only breaches' found in the , prices. j. Accused' was fined £lO. TOs cost? \ and £1 11s 6d solicitor’s fee on each lof the charges. ; The Magistrate remarked that the j prices were fixed at ia very good i/margin, and for a very good reason 1 1 to keep the prices from soaring, j lit was the duty of the shopkeepers ( fo adhere strictly to the prices of j -the Pr’ce Tribunal .