SALE OF WATCH

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 61, 15 March 1943, Page 4

SALE OF WATCH

PROFITEERING ALLEGED Wellington, March 13.] Said to be the first case taken ins New Zealand under the Control ofi Prices Emergency Regulations as amended in 1942, a prosecution! brought by the Price Tribunal againstl Emile Arnold Cattin, watchmaker and! jeweller, of Wellington, was heard beJ fore Mr. W. C. Harley, S.M., in tbs Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The de4 fendant, who was represented by Mr< W. J*. Stacey, pleaded not guilty to a charge of profiteering in that he sold! a wristlet watch for £7 10s, an unreasonable figure for the type of watch.) Mr. W. H. Cunningham appeared fos the Price Tribunal. The evidence for the prosecution was that the watch cost the defendant £2 Bs, including sales tax. His profit was thus £5 2s. He had not then! applied to the Price Tribunal for permission to increase hl3 prices. Ha gave the purchaser, a New Zealand soldier, a five-year guarantee and am undertaking of one year’s free service in writing. The defendant could have bought the watch for £1 Is 6d. plus Is 7d sales, tax, in September, 1939. That retail price was then £2 ss. The soldier said that the defendant had offered him the guarantee and! the free servicing. In paying the £7| 10s he had not been influenced by the giving of the guarantee. Frederick James Scott, chief inspector for the Tribunal, said that Cattin! had told him that watches were ira very short supply and hq thought he could get any price he liked for them. Several watchmakers and jewellers called by Mr. Cunningham said that the usual rate of profit in the trade: was 100 per cent. Cross-examined, they were unanimous that they would not give a five-year guarantee for any) watch. Two of the witnesses conceded that some value could be placed .in such a guarantee. Mr. Stacey submitted that the guarantee had a definite monetary! value apart from the value of the watch.

The magistrate said as the evidence strod it appeared that the purchaser «as told the price of ?he watch and then offered the guarantee. It seemed that the price would have been the same without the guarantee. The defendant, in evidence, said that he always gave a five-year guarantee as a matter of policy. He was the only jeweller in Wellington who did that. The price of the watch would hav<» been less without the guarantee, say, £5 ss. To Mr. Cunningham, he aomitted that he had not told the soldier how much he was charging for the guarantee.

Watchmakers called for the defence agreed that a five-year guarantee, which they themselves would not give, had a definite value, and one of them said that it was worth more than £3 or £4.

Mr. Cunningham pointed out that the same guarantee was included In the 100 per cent, profit gained In 1939.

In reserving his decision, the magistrate said it anpeaied that the guarantee was worth about half a crown ill 1939, whereas in 1942 it was worth quite a lot of money., •