TRIVIAL AND TRUMPERY

Southland Times, Issue 18857, 24 June 1920, Page 6

TRIVIAL AND TRUMPERY

LEARNED COUNSEL DISAGREE. INCIDENT IN PROFITEERING TRIAL.

On several occasions in the course of the hearing of the profiteering charges before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., in Christchurch last week, verbal exchanges between the learned counsel engaged became mildly warm j (says the Christchurch Sum. The mercury i rose highest just before the close of the j D.I.C. case. j In his address to the Court, Mr W. C. ! McGregor, K.C., of Dunedin, remarked on I the proiit of 109.3 per-cent., on cost, which j the ticketed selling price of the overcoat j concerned represented. He submitted that j it could not be held to be a reasonable rate jof profit when the whole community was j crying out for some relief from the strain jof the cost of living. Unless the Statute could prevent such trading as that, it must become a dead letter, lie was glad that IMr C. P. Skcrrett, K.C., for the defence, ihad not contended, as he did in the alarm | clock ease, that the charge was trivial, I trumpery' and mere political .camouflage. In this case his friend had adopted a more chastened spirit. Mr Skcrrett interrupted to say that he had not made that submission because he did not consider it necessary to repeat it; but he held to the opinion. He was not acting in any chastened spirit. 1 “Then, ’ said Mr McGregor, “I regret that my friend has seen fit to repeat those i assertions. They are utterly unwarranted !on the evidence, and utterly unwarranted j when applied to the efforts of a great public department that is endeavouring to combat an intolerable evil. The charges may appear trivial and trumpery to the wealthy firms concerned, they may appear trivial and trumpery to the wealthy—the fashionable —counsel engaged for the dej fence; but they are certainly not trivial and trumpery to the ordinary' working man and woman of this country. I don’t believe that my friend, in his heart, regards them i as trivial and trumi>ery.” I What, asked counsel, was the position j that such trading as this might lead to? | Here was a raincoat intended for the little ! girl—it might be the daughter of a working I man and his wife. Of course !rs learned friend might not be aware of those “trivial” details, because he happened to be a wealthy bachelor. Suppose, however, that with the father earning 15s a day, the mother put aside what she thought would be a .sufficient | to buy her little girl a coat.—3os, two whole j days’ wages. With that money, the went I into this great r hop, thinking that -he was , going to get lu.-r little one an overcoat to I fully protect her from the rain which occasionally fell, even in Christchurch. She was 1 told that the price was 455, What was the result? She could not buy the coat, so the j little girl wen, without. If the r,-other 1 could get. credit, 'she might buy the coat, I get into debt, end remain there. ' “That,” declared Mr McGregor, “i* a result that might at vend one of ihc.-e ‘trivial iand trumpery’ < a.-cs that my friend says I should never have been brought.’