“PROFITEERING” APPEALS.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12102, 12 July 1920, Page 6

“PROFITEERING” APPEALS.

CHRISTCHURCH, Last night. Appeals Wave been lodged by the Government and by the General and Drapery Importing Co. Ltd., in respect to the decision of Mr McCarthy, S.M., given on June 2§th, in connection with the profiteering charges. The , D.I.C. was fined £SO for the sale of a girl’s raincoat at an ' unreasonably high price (45/),. and the charges laid against five Christchurch hardware firms concerning the price of “Big Ben” alarm clocks, were dismissed. Two charges of counselling to commit the offence of profiteering (in alarm clocks) laid against a Wellington firm were also dismissed. The following are the grounds for the appeal in the D.I.C. case: (1) That the conviction was erroneous both in point of fact and law. (2) That there was no evidence upon which the Magistrate could find that the goods offered "for sale were so offered at a price which was unreasonably high. (3) That-the evidence showed that the price at which the goods«>were offered for sale was not unreasonably high. (4) That the Magistrate misdirected himself as to the true construction and meaning of section 32 of the Board of Trade Act, 1919, in as much as he held that the section required him to isolate each article sold or offered for sale, and to determine whether such article by itself, and without reference to the business in which it was sold, or any other circumstances, was sold or'offered for sale at an unreasonably high price; and, further, that the section required him to disregard the fact that the article offered for sale was part of a range of samples, and that according to the ordinary course and custom of the trade, it was proper to price some of the articles higher than others, to compensate for the certainty or extreme possibility of having to sell other articles in the range of samples at a loss, or at an unprofitable price. (5) That the Magistrate wrongly held there was no evidence | that the price of the article offered for sale was fixed in accordance with any trade custom or usage. On the contrary, there was uncontradicted evidence that the price was so,, fixed. (6) That on the evidence, the defendant company was not guilty of the offence against section 32 of the Act. The appeal by the Government will be in regard to a point of law, and Mr- McCarthy has been asked to state the case.