THE ALARM CLOCK CASES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 4, 30 September 1920, Page 8

THE ALARM CLOCK CASES

HEARING OF APPEAL CONCLUDED. After a three days' hearing the appeals in connection with the recent alarm clock profiteering cases wore concluded, UeFora the Full Court yesterday, the decision of tho Bench being reserved, the presldng Judges were Their Honours Mr. Instice lidwards, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice licrdman. full detal /V 'JfinT the which the Grown appealed against the acquittal of the respondents-Hastie, Bull and Pickering, Ltd., E. A. J. White, Ltd. (Sir John Pi, rf f y ' h k W son, Btrutliers and Co., Ltd., and G. «. Drayton and Co. (Mr. 0. 1. Skeirctt,K.C.). all of Christchurch; antl Brown and fli* remi, Ltd. (Mr. if. Myers), ofWellin«tonhave been published in iiiE Domimon. h# basis of the prosecution beins section 32 of tho Board of Trade Act, 1!!19. The Solicitor-General (Mr. W. 0. MacUre cor IC.C.) contended yestorday that the chief point of law involved was whether tho construction placed by the .JlaUstraM. on the words in the basic section, unrea; sonably high pricq and more than », fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit. Mr 'justice Edwards asked whether counsel contended that the Magistrate was not entitled to consider any l'cculiai usual circumstances o the• case. What is tho contention of the Act? he adae . "Is not its purposo to prevent adianWßo bcine taken of post-war conditions? Mr MacGregor: I believe, sir, that was the intention of the 1918 statute, 'ilio Act I of 1919 repeals the latter, and now lornis part of the law of the land. i in Mr. Justice Edwards remarked that lie did not think tho Act would last for over. "New Zealand used to be a free country, u n "u is tho inclination to endeavour to find somethine reasonable in lccis'a Mr U 'MacGrcEor said that in his opinion the woriftreasonably l.isli" .ula'" enough to show that a cross profit of 100 per cent, could not be rcasonab'le. lio law was framed to prohibit anyone selling goods at an unreasonably high price. Kcgardlng replacement value, which he con sidercd irrelevant to tho case m Doifltt counsel considered that once a sale was completed the profit wa » nothing taking place after could in any way aflect proflt made in tn« transaction, that profit being fixed and unchangeable. . „„„ Thero was somo discussion on the practice of wholesale and retail firms soiling the same article at one price to retailers and at a different price to individuals. Referring to Hastic. Bull and Pickering, one of tie rcspoudent firms, Mr. Mac-Ore-gor Baid that it sold "Big Ben to a retailer for 18s. 9d„ less. 2], per cent., and to the customer (the individual) at 255„ the former pricc yielding 40 per ccnt. The sale of tho same article at different prices could not bo justified. Mr. MacGregor added: ''If my view of tho section bo correct, the defences in this case are not relevant, and I consider the ruling of the Magistrate was not correct. If the respondents viow is upheld, tlic section becomes a dead letter, and must bo amended if it in Eolng to have any ofTect on the problom of tho , cost of living."