POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23692, 27 September 1940, Page 9

POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27. (Before Mr 11. W. Bundle, S.M.) CHIMNEY EIRE. Orthus Edward Rate was fined os and costs (3s> foi permitting a chimney to catch lire BREACHES OF PROHIBITION ORDER. John Hussey was lined 20s and costs for procuring liquor while prohibited, and 30s and costs for being on licensed premises while prohibited-. On a further charge of procuring liquor while prohibited lie was convicted and discharged. ARMS ACT BREACHES. Arthur Richardson was lined 5s and costs fur selling a llrearm without a permit, and Herbert Alexander Ernest Wilson was lined a similar amount fur procuring a firearm without a permit. MOTORISTS CHARGED. For failing to give way to a train, Israel Blackburn was fined £2 aml costs. Norman Yep and Arthur \\ illiam Williamson were each fined 10s and costs for having no warrants of fitness. The New Zealand Express Company was fined 20s and costs for overloading a heavy traffic vehicle. Ernest Henry White was lined 10s and costs for affixing wrong numbers to a motor vehicle. Bernard Walter Tremaine was fined 10s and costs tor operating an unlicensed heavy traffic vehicle, and for having no vehicle authority on his truck he was convicted without penalty. For-exceeding a speed of 30 miles per hour. Alan Parkinson was convicted and discharged. UNLICENSED WIRE LESS. For being in possession of an unlicensed wireless set. Harold W. Austen was fined 10s and costs, and was ordered to pay solicitor’s fee (£2 2s), and Murton George Austen was convicted and discharged. Also charged with being in possession of an unlicensed wireless set, Max Neumann was convicted and ordered to pay court costs (10s). PRICES STABILISATION REGULATIONS. Henry Berry and Co. Ltd. (two charges), Charles H. Tucker and Co. Ltd., Neill and Co. (two charges), and 11. Wilson and Co. Ltd. (two charges) were proceeded against, under informations laid by the Department of Industries and Commerce, that they sold goods at a price higher than that fixed by regulation 5 of the Prices Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, 1939, ho such increase having been authorised. The defendants, who were represented by Mr J. S. Sinclair, pleaded guilty. Mr H. S. Adams, who appeared for the department, said that with regard to Neill and Co., R. Wilson and Co., and Charles H. Tucker and Co. the informations all related to sales of salmon, and in these cases he did not suggest that the defendants had acted with a desire to commit a wilful breach of the regulations; but be suggested that, had they exercised sufficient care, they would have avoided the offences with which they were charged. With regard to the charge against Berry and Co., it concerned the sale of greaseproof paper, and counsel described it as an open-eyed breach, though it was one of small dimensions. The defendants had obtained two bales of paper and rationed it out to their customers. It had been explained that defendants did not think the matter worth a fixation of price, as the quantity was too small, and consequently they now found themsolves before the court. Mr J. S. Sinclair, who appeared for the defendants, said that he gathered there was no suggestion of profiteering, and he said that under the regulations merchants were not allowed, generally speaking, to charge higher prices than those ruling on September 1 last year without the approval of the authority. That had been their difficulty, because it was known that the price at which the merchants themselves' had to buy had risen 100 per cent. With reference to the charges against R. Wilson and Co., counsel contended that a bona fide mistake had occurred because of a misunderstanding that had arisen from a circular from the Merchants’ Association in Wellington when actually the price given in this applied to Christchurch only. When the matter was explained to them it had been adjusted. In regard to the charges against Neill anc] Co'., Mr Sinclair said that this related to salmon also, the management having misread the letter from the association. Dealing with the charge against Tucker and Co., Mr Sinclair contended, that there should have been no prosecution at all. They had no salmon in stock, and to oblige a customer purchased a quarter of a dozen from a retailer at the rate of 9s per dozen. This they had invoiced to their customer at 9s 2d. He submitted that the charge against Tucker and Co. should he dismissed as trivial. So far as Berry and Co. were concerned, counsel said they did not think it worth while delaying the matter and making application to the Price Tribunal when the matter concerned only two sales of greaseproof paper. At this stage the court adjourned until the afternoon. In connection with the case against Tucker and Co. the Magistrate said that, considering all the circumstances, he considered the prosecution was vexatious in this case and quite unnecessary. He was of opinion that it was a case which the court was justified in dismissing as trivial. The charge was accordingly dismissed. Neill and Co. were fined £2 and costs (10s) and ordered to pay solicitor’s fee (£2 2s) on each charge. iR. Wilson and Co. were fined £2 and costs (10s) and ordered to pay solicitor's fee (£2 2s) on one charge and fined £3 and costs (10s) and ordered to pay solicitor’s fee (£2 2s) on the other. Henry Berry and Co. Ltd. wore fined £4 and costs (10s) on one charge and ordered to pay solicitor’s fee (£2 2s). A conviction was entered on the other charge.