CHARGE AGAINST AUCKLAND BOOTMAKER
EVIDENCE FOR DEFENcJI
By Telegraph.— Press Association. Auckland, April 4.
Hearing of the defence in the case in which Ernest E. Leaning, bootmaker, of Queen Street, is charged with having sold a pair of surgical boots at a price whicn was unreasonably high, namely, £5,195. 6d. was resumed to-day before Mr. Cutten, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court., William James Hammill, formerly managing director and partner of Alurray and Co., Ltd., and president of tho New Zealand Boot Alanufacturers’ Association, said that from the cost of production and durability point of view defendant’s boots could not be fairly compared with ordinary factory-made boots. Cross-examined, witness said that £4 19s. 6d. was a fair price in the light of the prices of labour and materials quoted bv defendant. . 'The Magistrate asked witness in what manner he had brought his knowledge to bear on the case; if he had taken defendant’s word for the cost of production. . Witness replied that he used his technical knowledge of production, the output, and time taken. After further questioning, the Alagistratc remarked that, after all, witness gave evidence only on information supplied by defendant at his factory nhen witness was making an inspection. Dr. Purchas said that he knew of no other manufacturer in Auckland who supplied a type of surgical boot constructed'to afford fixed support Io tho arch o£ 1 lie* fool. Witness had sent patients to the defendant. Recently a wounded officer who had been fitted with a surgical boot nt the London Orthopedic Hospital, had ordered a new pair of boots from defendant, and after wearing them said that they were cheaper and of better workmanship than the pair he obtained in England. AVitness had found defendant an expert at making Ixiofs to special measurements, an accomplishment not possessed by ordinary makers.
fra Joseph Sutherland, managing salesman for Sutherland and Co., tanners, said that defendant always bought the best quality leather. , 't he ease wis rgai" ad toiirned.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19210405.2.64
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 162, 5 April 1921, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
328CHARGE AGAINST AUCKLAND BOOTMAKER Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 162, 5 April 1921, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.