HAND-SEWN BOOTS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 149, 19 March 1921, Page 7

HAND-SEWN BOOTS

PROFITEERING ALLEGED BOARD OF TRADE ACTION IN AUCKLAND By Telegraph.—Preus Association. Auckland, March 18. A charge of profiteering was brought by the Board of Trade (Mr. Meredith) against Ernest E. Leaning (Mr. Hall Skelton) in tho Magistrate’s Court today. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., was on the bench. Under section 32 of the Board of Trade Act defendant was charged that at Auckland in December. 1920. ho •old to one William Carroll one pair of hand-sewn boots at .£4 19s. 6d., which price, the information stated, 'is unnecessarily high." When the witnesses were ordered out of court, twelve retired.

Mr. Skelton said' that as defendant was going to show that he only charged 10 per cent, profit on cost., he would like to know if costs could be got against the Board of Trade. Mr. Meredith: We can discuss that when you get a verdict. Mr. Cutten said he would bo prepared to heal - argument upon that point later.

Mr. Skelton said that to save time defendant admitted the sale and the price. 1 Mr. Meredith here handed the boots in for inspection by the Court. He said the suggestion was that they were surgical boots. Actually, the difference was very little. Mr. Skelton said that the cost of those boots should have been .£5 Bs. Ho claimed that 10 per cent, was the actual profit on the charge made by defendant. ' Mr. Meredith said he proposed to call evidence to try and show that the profit was considerably over 100 per cent, on cost. Mr. Meredith said that defendant claimed to be a surgical bootmaker, but this pair could not be claimed to be surgical ones in any way. Any bootmaker could put in a bit of leather as stiffening. Mr. Skelton said that thousands of cripples were wearing boots made by defendant. Leaning was working for a number of medical men, who would be called to give evidence. - Mr. Meredith replied that the Government had been forced to take up the work of making surgical boots. Mr. Skelton: And were glad to come back to Leaning after three weeks. Evidence for the prosecution was then called. One boot manufacturer said he could sell the boot in question at a reasonable profit at £2 ss. lid. per pair. Another manufacturer valued the cost of the boots in question at £2 7s. 10)d, and estimated the retail price at .£3 IGs. 4|d., allowing GO per cent, on cost for profit and overhead charges. After hearing further evidence for the prosecution, tlie cose was adjourned.