PRICE ORDERS IN SHOP

Southland Times, Issue 25680, 24 May 1945, Page 6

PRICE ORDERS IN SHOP

CHARGES AGAINST MERCHANT The adjourned hearing of four charges against Frank Holloway of failing to display price orders in his hardware store was completed yesterday. The charges concerned razor blades, nails and two brands of socks. The case foi; the defence was heard yesterday, after which the Magistrate (Mr R.C. Abernethy) entered convictions on all charges; on three the defendant was ordered to pay costs only. The Price Tribunal was represented by Mr H. J. Macalister and the defendant by Mr G. M. Broughton. In making his submissions for the defence, Mr Broughton said that the defendant was a particularly busy man and in these days no one could expect the manager of a big business to know all the details of his undertakings. The evidence would show that the price orders for the razor blades and nails were prominently displayed and that it would be impossible for anyone not to see the prices. There was no breach concerning the nails and razor blades. In regard to the socks, the defendant was charging the correct prices, but at the time he did not have the prices displayed. He did not have them to display. There was no deliberate attempt by him to suppress the price orders; on the contrary, all that he had were hung prominently in his shop. ORDERS DISPLAYED Miss V. J. M. Ward, an employee in Holloway’s, said she wrote to Wellington in May 1944 for a copy of price orders (produced). The price order file for razor blades was under a glass case where the blades were kept. It was there for about a year. The price order file for nails was on the top of a counter which was visible to anyone entering the shop.. She had never been asked by anyone if they could see price orders. She received no price control information from other than the result of her letter to Wellington. To Mr Macalister: She did not see Mr Holloway take the inspector and show him where the files were when he called. She did nothing about it. She was not sure who placed the price order about blades under the glass top. When the inspector called she knew the price order was there. She did not get any price orders for socks. Frank Holloway, managing director of Frank Holloway and Co., Ltd., said he was interested in several other companies and was. a fairly busy man. His firm had lost several of its employees through war service. When the inspector called, the shop was in an “upset state”—the stock was all over the place; the shop was being renovated. He was unable to tell the inspector where the price orders were, but as soon as the inspector had gone he was shown where they were by members of the staff. His firm sold about 1000 different articles. The goods were ticketed and he advertised the prices extensively in the newspapers. He had only once been asked in his shop—by the inspector—for a price order. He now had all the prices the inspector said he should have and they were prominently displayed in the shop. To Mr Macalister: He made strong representations to have the case withdrawn as he thought the breach was a trivial one, but he did not think to give the Price Tribunal the information that the orders were posted up in the shop. It had not occurred to him. He could not remember cancelling a sale made to the inspector. He did not know it was his personal obligation to display the price orders; he left that to his staff.

“In all probability the defendant had the price orders, or some of them, but the fact remains that they were not displayed ,as required by the regulations,” said the Magistrate. He convicted the defendant and ordered him to pay costs, 10/- each, on three ’charges and fined him £2, costs 10/-, and solicitor’s fee £3/3/-, on the fourth charge.