ALLEGED PROFITEERING
I ;.. — A—: ' • i RESERVED IN THE ;V .-•:.:. CHBISTCHUECH CASES.' ( ! # 'Br Teleirraoh-Prass Association f ■':W;U ■- >./. Christchurch, June 16. | :,• , • •Soaring of the charges of alleged ; ; profiteering against several local, hardi■■/ ■ ware merchants and Brown and Durcau, ' of:'. Wellington, was continued to-day. In ; t all the ; . charges against Brown and ;■-.-■ Bureau of counselling the committal of j '■■ i offences pleas of not guilty were en- : Metered. In addressing Hhe Court Mr. C. P. '. >!.Skerrelt, JC.C, submitted that the cases i. /' ' were so trumpery as to cast discredit on ;'( -those responsible for the prosecution, i \ ' and ho suggested that the. activity of Hie ■ ■y^-P rose cutio n in respect of a negligible i; class of goods was intended to cover up r.• ■ if disinclination to tr.ko ■ action in rei spect ■ -to • basio lines. He submitted' i , that no evidence had been adduced that j' the profit made by any of tho defend- !/•: ants was an unreasonable Tate of com- ] ,';-.-. mercial profit. | ij.:'. ,'Atr. M. Myers, made an exhaustive analysis of the evidence in respect of 1 what constituted a fair rate of conimer--i ... '2 cial profit, and submitted that it could i only be determined upon recognised com- ['.' mercial practices; The prosecution had I. not led. any evidence on the point. If r . fixation of prices was objected to, there ; .Iwfuraniple power to make regulations i, abolishing or controlling • the system. ;'..' Ho urged that the question of depreciar tion of the valuo of money had a dis- ! ''■ ..tinct bearing on the question of reasonj able commercial profit. ! Mt. ;W. C. Macgregor (for the Crown) j'« repudiated opposing counsel's sugges- , u y,v : tions that the .cases were trivial. The i result of these cases would largely de- ... ~;,,..termine whether tho Act would remain ; 1,-,(..*. dead letter or'whether trailers were ; to be allowed to make what profits they I ;..-.„liked .under the guise of what was callj f !y :.. od commercial profits. Ho contended ;' tiiat seption 32 waa intended to Tefer ! ,s"% an 7 individual transaction. The cases, I ■.'" he submitted, weTe typical cases of pro- ! y —• Steering, which must be stopped in orI der to avert something approaching an •■■ industrial revolution in this country., i Tho Magistrate reserved his decision. '•v' : -- To-morrow a case against the D.I.C. .; will be taken.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200617.2.61
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 225, 17 June 1920, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
377ALLEGED PROFITEERING Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 225, 17 June 1920, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. 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.