SALE OF A MOUTHWASH

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 60, 4 December 1920, Page 10

SALE OF A MOUTHWASH

"AN UNREASONABLE CHARGE"

CHEMIST FINED £25

By Tolecraph—Prepß Association.

Christchurch, December 3. Bernard Darby, trading as Wallaco and Co., chemists, was charged beforo Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., with having sold to Robert Edward Alexander, half a gallon of 'borol for .£2 55., a price that was unreasonably high. Tho information was laid by Mr. J. \V. Collins. Mr. A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. A. 0. Fryer for the defendant.

Mr. Donnelly said that Mr. Alexandor was Director of tho Agricultural College at Lincoln. Eorol was an antiseptic 'month-wash. Mr. Alexander had bought it from the iirm a pint at a timo for 10.5. a pint. On one occasion it was agreed by an assistant in tho shop that llr. Alexander should bo given a halfgallon' bottle at reduced price. A bottle containing that quantity tvas supplied to him. It Wits the original sealed bottle put up by the manufacturers. The invoice showed that ho was charged 455., which was more than 10a. a pint. The wholesale price was 255. for a half-gallon, and it had not increased between October, 191S, and August, 1920. Defendant's prolit on turnover was 80 per cent. The sale was direct turnover and involved no question of replacement values. • The profit was, prima facie, unreasonable. It. was ss. more than Mr. Alexander had been charged when lie bought by single pints. The case was governed by decision in the case in connection with Mcllins food, heard in Wellington, which was brscd oil the fact that the price charged was higher than the price charged in other shops on or about the same time. The defendant, giving evidence, snid that when Alexander complained of theprice, ho (Mr. Alexander) did not make any montion of pints) and half-gallons. ITe stated that he had laid a complaint with tho Prices Investigation Tribunal. Witness remarked that he might havo made a personal complaint first. Vecause he (witness) had not 'been aware of the sales. Mr. Alexander replied that he could settle it with the tribunal, Mid walked out of the shop. Witness did not at any time express regret or admit having made an over-chargo. 110 identified the prescription, produced, specifying ''Borol," and stated that unless Mr. Alexander had brought in tho prescription in tho first place he would not have been supplied with "borol." Referring to prtcos generally, witness Said that his overhead expenses were 38 per cont. on his turnover. These expenses included a reasonable allowance as salary for himself and for income-tax. He did not consider his expenses unduly high. The allniglit dispensary, which was regarded as one of the cheapest in Nov Zealand, had an overhead expense of about 50 per cent., and ho would infer that tho overhead expenses of his dispensing department, if calculated, would not be less than that iiguroi Giving judgment, tho Magistrate said that tho gross profit on tho sale was 80 per cent. In the first instance, "borol" had been sold to Mr. Alexander fendant under a doctor's prescription. The defendant now stated that this standard of "patent" medicine, having been offered by a doctor's prescription, all sub-, sequent orders must be trcaicd similarly, and Hint he was entitlod to charge for it, nil a higher senlo on account of skill in dispensing. In the ease of a proprietary article such as "liorol," all ski 1L and cost of compounding was covered by the manufacturer's price. lie, therelore, saw no justification for charging rnoro for medicine when it had been prescribed by a doctor than when it was sold in the ordinary wav. "No doubt," ho continued, "the prescription department of a chemist's business costs more to run than the department for tho sole of ordinary goods, but I cannot look on half a gallon of "Borol" as a prescription, morely heeaitso the first lot was supplied on a doctor* order. I think that is"a caso or an unreasonable charge. The defendant Ts convicted fliul fined <£25. nnd coats*