GOODS OVERCHARGED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 72, 10 May 1946, Page 5

GOODS OVERCHARGED

PRICE TRIBUNAL CASES LOCAL PROSECUTIONS . As the result of a recent visit to the district by an Inspector of the Department of Industries and Commerce, a number of prosecutions against local retailers for overcharging on certain lines of goods were heard in the Whakatane Magistrate’s Court last Tuesday. Mr E. L. Walton S.M. was on the Bench. Mr B. S. Barry, in all cases, represented the Department.

Overcharge on Meal

Proceedings were taken against Frank Reeve Canning (Mr Otley) who, being a retailer of substantial meals, was first charged with failing to keep a price order prominently displayed in his shop, and secondly with overcharging for a meal of bacon and eggs sold to an Inspector. The offences took place on or about November 15, defendant pleading guilty in both instances. Mr Barry stated that the Act provided for a maximum fine of £IOO in the case of an individual or £SOO in the case of a company. In November, 1945, an Inspector had visited defendant’s premises at Whakatane, known as Central Grills, and had ordered a meal of bacon and eggs, for which he had been charged 2/9 instead of 2/3, representing an overcharge of 6d. Further investigation had revealed that a copy of the price order was not displayed on the premises.

Mr Otley for the defendant stated that with regard to the displaying of the price order, menus had been printed with the various prices thereon, and these had been displayed. Owing to the difficulty in obtaining many of the goods shown, however, these had been temporarily withdrawn. The other offence had been committed in the evening when a skeleton staff only was retained to serve service car passengers. The charge was made by a new and inexperienced waitress. He added that the majority of goods sold with eggs were priced at 2/9. On the first charge, a fine of £1 with costs 20/6 was inflicted, and on the second, a fine' of £3, with costs £2 14/-.

Potatoes and Jam

The Department also proceeded against S. T. Keen (Mr Otley) storekeeper of Awakeri, who was charged firstly with that on or about November 15, 1945, he sold to a customer a tin of jam at a price of 2/2 (Tribunal price 1/11) and secondly; 561 bof Main Crop potatoes at a price of 12/6 (Tribunal price 10/10). Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts.

Mr Otley stated that in the first instance, the price order allowed varying prices for different types of jam. Defendant had followed the practice of striking an average over all types, and retailing them at the same price, which amounted to 2/2 per tin. With regard to the potatoes, the overcharge had been a mistake. The particular line in question (Main Crop) was' Australian, and had shown a great amount of deterioration. This had resulted in a loss to those handling the stock, and therefore defendant had already been penalised in this connection. On the first charge, a fine of £2 with costs £2 12/- was inflicted, and on the second a fine of £3 with costs 28/6.

A Question of Freight

Three charges were preferred against Sinciair McConnell, storekeeper of Waimana (Mr Hamerton) viz. of selling 61bs of lead-headed nails at a price of 5/6 (6d overcharge); of offering for sale a 28oz. tin of jam at 2/2 (overcharge of 3d); and of selling 21bs of nails at a price of 1/8 (overcharge of 4d). Defendant pleaded guilty to all counts. The prosecutions followed the visit of an Inspector and an inspection of the records on November 19. “Defendant in this case, is a storekeeper at Waimana,” said Mr Hamerton. “It must be remembered that freight charges are very severe, and it appears that storekeepers in such rural localities, are placed in a very rigid position by the fixed price order. Apparently they are expected to retail nails at the same price as they are sold in Queen Street. From Auckland to Waimana, freight charges amount to £2 16/- per ton. In this case, defendant charged an additional Id per pound on ordinary nails, and an extra lid per lb on

lead heads to cover the freight, costs.” The Bench: But that additional charge would probably amount to much more than the freight. Mr Hamerton: Yes, I suppose it would amount to a little more than the cost of freightage. The Bench: If he merely added the freight it would be different, but he has added much more. In fact he would get a great deal more. If he made an additional charge of a farthing per pound it would be nearer the mark. Difficulty of Assessment

Mr Hamerton went on to explain that the position with regard to the jam was also difficult. The price order allowed for 54 classes of jam ranging in price from 1/11 per tin to 3/1. Defendant was unable to retail those listed at 1/11 at a profit. With additional charges to cover freight etc. 12 tins of jam cost 23/5, which worked out at just over the 1/11 listed as the retail price by the Tribunal. Accordingly he struck an average, and although the price of the tins valued at 1/11 was higher, that of the fancy classes of jam was below the set price. In addition to this, he allowed discount.

The Bench: Whether the price is a fair one or not, I can’t say. I cannot deal with those aspects of the case. Storekeepers should give these matters their consideration. I think that fines inflicted should be sufficient to act as a deterrant, and I trust that those which I inflict do act as a deterrent. In addition to the storekeeper, there is the customer to consider. One can only assume that the controlled prices as established are fair.

On the two charges of retailing nails at a price above that fixed by the Tribunal, a fine of £3 with costs £3 2/- was inflicted, whilst on the other, the fine amounted to £2 with costs 20/6. An Isolated Instance

Proceedings were taken by the Department against Messrs. Bell and Hodgson, storekeepers of Waimana (Mr Hamerton) who were charged with retailing firstly a pair of men’s half-hose (knitted wear) at a price of 3/9 (overcharge of 3d) and secondly a tin of marmalade at 2/3 (overcharge of lad). A plea of guilty was entered on both counts.

Mr Hamerton stated that defendant owned a substantial business at Waimana, and employed a large staff, which it was impossible to keep under full supervision. Moreover, this was an isolated case, and the Inspector had discovered no other instances of overcharging in the dockets inspected by him. With regard to the hose, defendants at the time were not members of the Drapers Association, and did not possess a copy of the regulations. The sale had, in fact, been made quite innocently. On the first charge, a fine of £3 with costs £3 3/- was inflicted, and cn thr second a fine of £2, costs 20/6.