FINED FOR MAKING TOO MUCH PROFIT

Chronicle (Levin), 9 August 1947, Page 8

FINED FOR MAKING TOO MUCH PROFIT

AUCKLAND, August 8. Described by defending eounsel as . tk-e first prosecution taken under the ■ Price Stabilisation Emerger.cy Eegulations wliere the c[uestion of profiteerihg had been brought in eases of second hand goods, a charge of selling 200 used American Arhiy field jackets at an unJ reasonably high price, was laid against. Harold Manly Itogers, second hanci dealer, before Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M. Defjendant, who was represented by Mr/ Sehramm, pleaded not guilty. Prosecuting for the Price TribunaJ, Mr. H. Kosen said defendant toough-. 232 surplus field jackets from the Wa. Assets Realisation Board on March 12 for £52 4s, paying 4s 6d eaeh. The fol lowing day, without altering or repairing the jackets, he sold 200 to Army . Surplus Stores, Auckland, for £250, whieh worked out at 25s for eaeh garment. Tliis meant a profit of 455 pei cent. At the usual commercial profit of 25 per cent. accused would have sold them at 5s 7d eaeh for £56 5s. The excess profit was £193 10s. An ofiieer of the Price Tribunai Frederick Slater, produced the goodf invoices to Mr. Sehramm. Witness said he believed there was no price fixatiou on second hand goods. He agreed tliai sometimes artieles were purehased from

the War Assets Board for a "song. Negotiations and trips to Wellington lo purehase the jackets were deseribet. by defendant in evidence. He inter viewed the general-manager of the Wa. Assets Board who told him they dio ' not make private treaties with indivi duals but he later made a written offe. of 30s per jacket to the Board. V-tei he arranged with the Pederation oi Wholesalers to secure jackets from the board. Mr. Sehramm: How was the price of 4s 6d fixed? Defendant: Through the federation, [ presnme. Mr. Sehramm submitted that the Price Tribunai had no jurisdiction to deeide the prices of second hand goods as the regulations only referred to new goods. "I can find no distinetion between first and second hand goods in the ^tatutes," said. the Magistrate when giving judgment. "If defendant had made a reasonable profit instead of the profit he did, the 'difference would be £200." Accordingly he would impose a fine of £200 plus another £200 which was one-fifth of the maximum penalty, mak- ' ing a total fine of £400.