PRICE OF INFANT FOOD

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 4, 30 September 1920, Page 5

PRICE OF INFANT FOOD

BERTIE SMITH APPEALS ' 1 - CASE BEFORE FULL COURT The appeal of, Bertie Smith, EWoJ Wellington, who was convioted o£ profiteering under tho Board of lrad? Act (section 32), and was fined £100, was heard by tlio Pull Court yesterday. The appellant had been indtctod for selling a bottle of JtelUn's food at a price that tho Magistrate (Mr. E. Pago, S.M.) considered unreasonOr' tho bench wero Thoir Honours Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Ohayinan and Mr. Justice Herdmai}." Tho appellant was represented by Mr. A. Gray, K. 0., and with him Mr. A. M. Saleli. The Grown was represented by Ihe Solicitor-General (Mr w. 0. MacGregor, K. 0.), acting for the original informants, the Board of ™(l<s- . In opposing- tho appeal, Mr. MacGregor submitted that it was one on grounds both of law and fact. It had been shown in evidenco in tho Court below tliat tho. appellant had paid 23. lid. & bottle for the Mellin's food, the price being 255. 6d. a dozen. The appellant's selling price had been 3s. 6d. a bottle, a gross profit t of 64 per cent, being realised from this price. Counsel submitted that though appellant raised his price for Mellin's food to 3s. fid., other Wellington grocers had sold the same artiole for 2s. 9d.: and he.bolievod tho articlo had been obtainable in Auckland at 2b. fid. Evidence had shown that Smith had stated that the inoreasod price was a mistake following a general revision of prloes. Taking into account overy detail of the case, tho Magiatrato had contended that tho selling prico was unreasonable, and. hart convicted accordingly. Mr. MacGregor said ho realised that the appeal sought to dispute the decision of the Magistrate. This was a serious thing and the Benoli should liesitato beforo upsetting a Magistrate's judgment. The lato Sir Joßhua Williams had laid down a fairly strict definition of a Magistrate's powers and capabilities, emphasising that Magistrates wero usually correot in tliwr decisions. , \ Mr. .Justice Edwards* We\ are not bound by this view. The appellant is entitled to tho higher tribunal's adjudication. Mr. MacGregor replied that the opinion of the late Mr. Justice' Williams was that the right of genetal appeal should ba abolished, Question of Evidence. On the question of evidence, Mr. MaeGregor referred to a, loading caso as demonstrating tho need for tho Court to consider evidence taken before a Mftsis .trate. Mr. Justice Chapman: Yes, in a civil oase, as you have quoted, tho ovidence is necessary, but it is different in a criminal case. Tho decisions of tho Judges are not always binding in oases such as you have referred to. An appeal is praotioally a retrial. Mr. MacGregor contended that the Magistrate's deoision was correot, and should bo upheld. Tlio rate of commercial profit made by tho sale complained of was unfairly high. Caso for Appellant. Mr. Gray, for the appellant, contended that tho price a{ whioh tlio food wa6 sold was not based on roplacoment charges, etc., as in the alarm clook oases. There was no guide as to section 22 and its interpretation. It would be neceisgry for the Court to take into consideration tho circumstances relative to the sale of the articlo. Tho aim of the. Act was not to penalise businesses, such as the defendant's, butt '0 protect consumers from having to pay excessive prices for necessities. Mr. Justice Chapman: Infant food is more of a necessity thaii alarm clooks. This is not a case, evidently, whero a man is seeking to obtain a high prico becauso he is tho only dealer in tho goods. . . , If that wero so, overy dealer would become a profiteer. Counsel contended that tho Court had to consider profit made over tho whole of a business, including deterioration, overhead charges, and saleabllity. The fact that some grocers sold at less than tho defendant's prico did not make tho latter guilty of profiteering, ''It seems ironical," added Mr. Gray, "that the ono chosen to be prosecuted for selling nt 9d. moro than somo othor grocers,, should have long been known as a grocer whoso prices were uniforrnly low, and whose balance-sheet showed that, given only a slight variation of his business skill, his profit would bo turned into loss," Counsel submitted that tho appeal should be allowed. In reply, the Solicitor-General claimed that the conviotion should be sustained as, on his own ovidonce, tlio appellant had made moro than a reasonable profit on tho line complained of. Tho question of profit over tho wholo business could only be considered in respect of tho penalty, which, if too high, might in tho present case, Do referred back to tho Magistrate for adjustment. Tho Bench reserved its deoision.