ALLEGED PROFITEERING.
t , , SALE OF SUBGICAL BOOTS. (HWBS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) i AUCKLAND, April 4. The tearing of the defence in the awe in which Ernest E. Learning, bootmaker, Queen street, is charged witfb. having sold a pair of surgical boots at a price which was unreasonably high, namely, £4 19a 6d, was resumed before Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. "William James Hammill, formerly managing director of, and a partner in, Murray and Co., Ltd., and president of tile New Zealand Boot Manufacturers' " Association, said from the cost of production and durability point of view, ' the defendant's boots could not bo fairly -* compared with ordinary factory-mndo boots. <■ Cross-examined, witness said that'£4 » 19a 6dwas a fair prico in tihe light of the price of labour and materials, quoted ♦ by the defendant. The Magistrate asked witness in what ' manner lie had brought his knowledge to be &r on the case if he had taken defendant's word for the cost of production. .Witness replied flhat he used his technical knowledge of production, tho output, and time taken. After further questioning, the Magistrate remarked that, after oil, witness gave evidence only on information supJ plied by defendant at his fectory when witness -was making an inspection. Dr Purchas said he knew of no other manufacturer in Auckland who supplied a type of surgical boot constructed to afford fixed support to the arch of tihe foot. Witness had sent patients to defendant. Recently, a wounded officer , who had been fitted with a surgical boot * at the London Orthopaedic Hospital had ordered a new pair of boots troni defendant, and after wearing them said ( they were cheaper and of better work- > S'Bwi'P'than tne P air ho obtained in England. Witness had found defendant ', expert at making boots to special rhea,J aurements, an accomplishment not post/aessed by ordinary makers. S Ira Joseph Sutherland, managing salesjj man for Sutherland and Co., tanners, \ »W defendant always bought tho oe3t , quality leather. &-' jthe case was adjourned.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19210405.2.43
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17111, 5 April 1921, Page 7
Word count
Tapeke kupu
330ALLEGED PROFITEERING. Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17111, 5 April 1921, Page 7
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.