Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

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
328

CHARGE AGAINST AUCKLAND BOOTMAKER Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 162, 5 April 1921, Page 6

CHARGE AGAINST AUCKLAND BOOTMAKER Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 162, 5 April 1921, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert