AN APPEAL DISMISSED

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 18, 16 October 1920, Page 8

AN APPEAL DISMISSED

THE MELONS FOOD CASE

SMITH'S CONVICTION STANDS

i The lull Court yesterday dismissed the appeal of Eortio Smith, grocer, against a conviction of profiteering, over the sale ot Mellilis food at an unreasonable price, and a fino of JJIOO for that offence, the appellant was represented by v e i l Gray * K-C " with him Mr - i!u M. balck. Tho Crown was represented by tho Solicitor-General (Mr. W. C. MacGregor, K.C.), acting .for the original informants, tho Board of Trade. In giving tho judgment of tho Court, which had consisted of Their Honours I Mr. Justice Edwards, Mf. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justico Herdman, Mr. Justice Chapman referred briefly to the ovidenco in the case, and said the Court had no reason to doubt that" the sale was made at an unreasonable price. Ii had been claimed that the appellant was a cheap grocer and that a high pricoi here and there was finite justified in' order to enable him to carry out the policy of selling cheap goods. "Thefe is somo foundation -to the claim that he is n cheap grocer," said His Honour, and that he has that reputation, but the Court cannot concern itself with any particular trade policy. ... An accountant states that a grocer aims at a profit of 5 per cent, on his turnover, which involves a gross profit of 20 or 25 per cent. This statement is borne out by another grocer. The appellant states that ho ' makes 37 per cent., which is characterised as absurdly low. It mny be a very sound policy for a man to increase his turnover in this way (and the appellant said ho had increased it by 800 por cent.), but he is not justified to back this policy by means of a policy of recoupment involving charging on .particular lines a price, which, if charged' by other grocers, involves making an unreasonable profit. There is here no, jus tification for tho.difference between tileappellant's rate of profit on this article and that of others, It may be that othci grocers are asking a price that is unreasonably low. There was no evidence that when the average profit made by other grocers was 2d., a bottle, and by Smith lid., that thero had not been, a mistake, as Smith fixed his own prices.' "lie may havo made a miscalculation,' said His Honour, "but that does not amount to a defence on tho ground oi error or accident. The appellant's evi deuce as to what ho thought tho whole-

■■'I? prico was is not precise, and he gives no satisfactory explanation ns to miscalculation or error."

His Honour here reform! to the warning Riven one of Smith's shopmon by a customer, relative to the prico of the food, adding: "Wo aro willing to assume, without finding ourselves called upon to express a decided opinion on the point, that a 6alo made in ignorance that it was a, sale at an unreasonable profit, would not cdnstituto an offence;; but a, man is primarily chargeable with a knowledge of his own business, aflil the proof need not go beyond establishing that tho article was sold by tho person charged or by his shopman in tht ordinary course. . . . The case then fulls within the class in which, so much being proved or presumed, it is open to tho accused to set up accident or mistake as his excuses." The appeal was accordingly dismissed.