FOOLISH, BUT NOT PROFITEER.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12086, 25 June 1920, Page 8

FOOLISH, BUT NOT PROFITEER.

Per Press Association. Dunedin, June 25 At the Supreme Court to-day the Registrar read the judgment of Mr Justice Sim in the case heard on June 10th in which the Crown sued for penalties in respect to sales of wheat, the defendants being A Steven and Co and William Josiah Love. His Honor said the evidence showed that in the seven transacions which had been traced the total profit was, only £23, and there was no reason to suppose that the remaining three were more profitable. It was clear, therefore, that defendants did not engage in the transactions for the sake of profit to bs derived from , them. There did not appear to bo any secrecy about the business and when the assistant Wheat Controller investigated a complete disclosure was him. The troth seemed to be that defendant, Love, thought other merchants were evading the regulations and he, rather foolishly, determined to disregard them. His Honor thought it wonld be sufficient penalty if the defendant company paid a penalty of £ls in respect of each of the ten offences, and if Love paid the nominal penalty of £1 in respect of each of them. In the case of the defendant company the sum of £4So was remitted in each of the ten cases and judgment was given for £l5O in all. In the case of the other defendant £499 was remitted in each of the ten cases and judgment was given against him for £lO in all.