BUTCHERS’ TEST CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 86, Issue 65, 18 March 1942, Page 3

BUTCHERS’ TEST CASE

PRICE TRIBUNAL ORDER DISPUTED “DIFFICI.LT TO UNDERSTAND,” SAYS MAGISTRATE. | (P.A.) Christchurch, March 17. Twenty-eight Christchurch butchers who, it was slated by counsel for de- | fence, “had deliberately courted proi secution so that injustices and absurdities of price orders made by the , Brice Tribunal, which had made busii ness virtually impossible, could be laired in Court,” were charged in the i Magistrate’s Court with selling meal ' at a price not in conformity with the price order. With the exception of one defendant, who disputed the facts and against whom the charge was dismissed, all the persons charged were convicted and ordered to pay costs. Defendants admitted the breaches, but pleaded not guilty only to bring the facts' before the Court, saia counsel. Mr. A. W. Brown, prosecuting, said no increase was to be made in the price of any goods without the authority of the Price Tribunal. Wlien inspectors visited defendants' ! shops it was found that small increases in the prices allowed had been made. The increases for the most part were small, but aggregated to a large sum when the amount of meal sold was considered. As Mr. C. S. Thomas (counsel for the defence) would say, the butchers to-day arc labouring under lerriiic difficulties.” Mr. Tnornas said the main argil- ( ment to show the difficulties under J which butchers were labouring was that the Tribunal had fixed a maximum price for the retailer but none lor the producer. The obvious result was that prices had risen for the butchers and meat had to De sold at a loss because the butchers could not ] pass on the increases. Tests showed. Mr. Thomas said, that the loss on a , beef carcase was £1 4s 3d and on a 4 sheep carcase 3s lid The magistrate, Mr. F. C. Levvey: “It seems to be a lit and proper case 1 for the Bench Lo make some comment. It is difficult to understand the : clash—in fact, it is more than difficult, it is in ■: edibl ■ - 1 hat an> t i face of the figures produced in Court to-day, which have been proved and verified, should make such a basic J order which puts binding chains on the producer. The order does not ap- ► parently take into account fluctuations or differences in conditions, it is a dogmatic, fixed and inflexible ' rule. The rights of Ihe public need to be safeguarded, but not at the expense of the outchers, who, in effect, woulc;' 1 be forced out oi business by the order.) It is incredible to realise that such an! . i order had ever been made.”