INCORRECTLY MARKED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19433, 20 October 1925, Page 5

INCORRECTLY MARKED

LEATHER OB OTHERWISE .PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOOT AND SHOE DEALERS THE HELPLESS PURCHASER “This is one of the class of cases in which the liability is on the retailer, and the purchaser is helpless. The Act must be complied with for the protection of the users of these shoes,” remarked Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning when recording a conviction against A. W. Gemmell, boot and shoe dealer, for having in his possession for sale several pairs of ladies’ white canvas shoes, the soles of which contained material other than leather; and failing to have a statement of the material or materials comprising the sole conspicuously and legibly stamped on such soles. A plea of guilty was entered by the defendant, who, after the Magistrate had heard the facts of the case, was mulcted in the sum of £5 and costs 7s.

Inspector E. W. F. Gohns explained that the proceedings were taken under the footwear Regulations Act 1913. He and the inspector of footwear had visited the defendant’s shop, situated in the Avenue, and found that he had fourteen pairs of ladies’ white canvas shoes containing compo. stiffeners, and inside soles that were not of leather. The retail price of the shoes was 14/6 per pair. The stamp on the soles of the shoes said that the soles were of leather, this being quite contrary to fact.

The defendant stated that the shoes had been in his store for three years. He was under the impression that the stamp was adequate. The Magistrate observed that the dedefendant had had a lot of luck if the shoes had been in stock for three years, and they had escaped the attention of the inspector.

Proceedings were also taken against A. C. Vernon under tho same section. The inspector pointed out that on visiting the defendant’s premises in Ridgway Street, they found he had in stock 68 pairs of girls’ and ladies’ canvas shoes, some of which were not stamped at alt. They had compo. heels, ana a small strip of leather. The Magistrate on inspecting one of the shoes.—This stiffener is of cardboard?

The inspector replied in the affirmative. Ho added that the defendant had explained that a previous inspector had called at his shop, and pointed out that a certain brand of shoes was not marked “wooden heels.” He got the shoes branded thus, and was under the impression that the remainder of his stock was in order. ‘ ‘ The stock that defendant carries is extensive, and it could not be expected that one tor would go through every line in the shop,’’ said Mr Gchns. 11 On this occasion only certain lines were looked through, and this number was found.” The defendant had further explained that 250 pairs of the shoes in question were landed in October 1922, and, as they were not in demand, he had not gone through them. However, added the inspector, on tho figures supplied, the defendant had sold 182 pairs of the shoes. The defendant promised to go through tho entire stock, and see that everything was marked correctly. The defendant, who pleaded guilty to the offence, stated that he could not understand the manufacturers branding half of the stock correctly, and the remainder* incorrectly. He had inspected some of the shoes and took it that tho lot were marked in the manner required by the Act.

The Magistrate stressed the necessity for the shoes being properly marked and said that the Act had been found necessary to protect the public. The poor old harassed father in the evening felt he had been hardly treated when he discovered what he had been buying. He advised the defendant to get a "copy of the Act and acquaint himself with its requirements. A conviction was entered and a fine of £7 10s and costs 7s imposed.