PROFITEERING JUDGEMENTS.

Timaru Herald, Issue 170267, 12 July 1920, Page 8

PROFITEERING JUDGEMENTS.

« — - —- TWO APPEALS LODGED. BY GOVERNMENT AND D.I.C. (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHUKCH, July 10. Apxseals have been lodged by the Government and by the D.I.C, in respect tothe decisions of Mr McCarthy, S.M.j given on June 2S in connection with profiteering charges. The D.I.C was fined £SO for' of a girl ; a raincoat at an unreasonably high price (455), and charges laid against five Christ-church .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 urged for the appeal- in the D.I.C. case :—-

(1) That the conviction was erroneous I ■both in point of face 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) "What evidence there was showed that the price at which the goods were offered for sale was not unreasonably high. (4) That tho Magistrate misdirected himself as to the true construction and meaning of section 32 of the Act, inasmuch as he held that the section reqixired'chim, to isolate each article sold! or offered for sale, and to determine whether such article, by itself and without reference to tho-business in, which it was sold or any other circumstance, 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 Bale 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 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 that there was no evidence that the price of articles offered for sale was f ed 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 an 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 tho Lease.