ALLEGED PROFITEERING.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160794, 30 October 1920, Page 11

ALLEGED PROFITEERING.

IN TWEEDS AND SUITINGS WELLINGTON FIRMS » CHARGED. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 29. This morning, at the Magistrate’s Court, Mr Evans, S.M., commenced the hearing of nine charge? of profiteering on tweeds and suitings laid by the Board of Trade against four well-known Wellington warehouse firms—Bing, Harris and Co., Ltd., R. Jamieson and Co., Robert Wilson and Co., and Miller and Ahearn. Mr Macassey is appearing for the Crown and Mr Skerrett for the defence. The charge against Bing, Harris and Co. was taken first. It is alleged that the firm sold to Kitto and Sons at 22/6 per yapd material purchased from the MOsgiel mills for 13/2 per yard, less 3% per cent., and the estimated cost to Bing, Harris and Co. after allowing for the discount and landing charges was 12/9%, and the price to retailers after allowing for discount, 21/8 per yard, leaving a profit of 8/10% or 69.38 per cent- on the cost or 40.96 per cent, on the selling price. Counsel said the undiscounted selling price would leave the defendants a profit of 70.34 per cent, on cost, while the overhead expenses for the whole business for a year were 10.73 per cent, on the turnover. However, New Zealand tweeds were a particularly quick-selling line, and the overhead expenses on their sale were probably lower than those taken over the whole business. After referring to other sales by defendants, counsel said‘that in one case the charge made allowed a profit of 97.41 per cent., almost an equivalent amount. He doubted whether the defendants had actually considered the replacement values. They were an afterthought, for the whole output from'' the New Zealand mills for a year had been bought up, and the material was difficult to obtain from England. A. C. Kitto, Joseph Lewis, and Gothard Krebs gave evidence of purchase. The cloth was of good value, and the market was very short of New Zealand tweeds at the time. The case is proceeding. THE KITCHEN TABLE CASE. DEFENDANTS FINED -£IOO. DUNEDIN, October 29. Riach and McLennan, warehousemen, were convicted of profiteering in connection with the sale of a kitchen table, and the defendants were fined £IOO and costs. Mr Bartholomew, S. said the price of the table was stated to Mrs McFarlane on her first visit at £2 ss, that on' her subsequent visit she purchased it for £2 17s 6d, that the factory cost to the defendant company was 30s, less 2£ per cent, for cash, that the maximum permissible trade profit was 33 per cent. Allowing 2s 6d for cartage, the extreme retail price would be <£2 2s 6d, and this was somewhat in excess of other traders’ prices. The table, therefore, was sold at a price which was unreasonably high. In considering the question of the penalty His Worship observed that the proper circumstance to take into consideration was the defence set up.