ALLEGED PROFITEERING

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 226, 18 June 1920, Page 7

ALLEGED PROFITEERING

SALE OF A GIRL'S COAT. By Telegrath-Proßß Association. Christchurch, June 17. In tho Magistrate's Coujt to-day, the General Drapery Importing Company of Now Zealand, Ltd. (DJ.C.) was charged V'ith hav-in# committed tho (JTenco of pspfiteering by offering for sale on <\pril 27, 1920, to George Hart Christie, a girl's rainproof coat at the price cf 453., which price was unreasonably high. 'J he information was laid by Christie, secretary to th* Christchuroh Prices Investigation Committee, under section 82 of the Board of Trade Act, 1919. Mr. S. E. M'Corthy, S.M., Was on the bench. Mr, AV. C. MacGregor,. K.C., v-ith him Mr. A, T. Donnelly, Appeared for the prosecution, and the defendant company was represented by Mr, C. P. Skerrett, ICC. A plea of not guifty was entered. Mr. MacGregor outlined the evidenco that would bo oalled.. A |:irl'e coat, which cost,the D.I.C. 17s, lid., pfus 20 per cent., or 21s. Cd., had l*en offered for sale at 455., a profit of 109.3 per e(nt. on cost. Three other coats of fne same purchase had been bought and offered for sale at the following prices, the approximate cost being mentioned first in each cose32a. 5d.. sale price 525. Gd.; 455.. 3d,, 755. j 88s. tkl,, 755. . Counsel submitted that that showed a clear breach of the Act. The average profit on cost asked for the four coats was 79 per cent. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was given by Christie, and for the defence by. Oscar Clarence Cox (manager of the D.1.C.) and Mary Helen Vmight (head of the underclothing and children's outfitting department). The last-mentioned said that after gh'e purchased this line of samples sho. reconditioned one of the coats. To pay its way her department should return 50 per cent, to GO per cent, on cost. They did not always get that. This range of coats had been picked over" i/efore she purchased it. She prioed the line on tho accepted trade custom. Providing that samples were bought cheap, they woro priced on one's own judgment, bearing in mind that any other firm which had bought good 9 froni this range of Samples would have had to pay landing costs of from 50 per oent. to 55 per Cfnt. on tho Home cost nt the time of the order. Her object in pricing was to give good value; that was tho policy. This coat was a novelty cent, and likely to be more saleable, so fhe I'xed its price higher in comparison than the prices of others in the line. The cut cf a coat counted fcr more , even than good material. She thought that in marking on© coat at 455. she was giving tho public good value, and the price was feed having regard 'o the saleability of tho line as a whole. ' In his address to the Court, Mr, Skerrett pointed out that this wns the purchase and sale of a job lot. Selling prioes had been fixed in tho ordinary course of trado. What profit would be mado on this line of samples was rnrely a matter of conjecture. It could not be determined until tho last coat had been sold, and possibly some would ltavo to bo solid even below cost. In the purchase of jcib lines or bankrupt stocks, it was impossible to fix somo definito rate of profit for oaoli article. Tho purchase by the D.I.C. wns a good. 35 per cent, under landed cost. In fixing the soiling price, rogard must be. had to the market value and the risk of uon-salen-bility of the remaining articles in tho j lino must fidso be considered. Unless a trader did that ho would ultimately end in bankruptcy. The gross profit on the i cost originally fixed for the \hole line . was 78.5 per cent. As it cost about GO par cent, to pay the department's way, < ou]y 18 per cent, wns left to cover certi- < tude of sale. . Tho Magistrate reserved his decision. <