PROFITEERING

Hokitika Guardian, 26 March 1920, Page 4

PROFITEERING

TRIBUNAL AT CHRISTCHURQH.

(Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, March 25

Several minor cases were dealt with by the Prices Investigation Tribunal in Christchurch this week.

4 complaint regarding the* pi'ce of joiners’ tools upon investigation was considered to be unfounded. A case of alleged overcharge by a Cus toms agent was also held to be disproved, the charge made being a usual one by Customs agents for services rendered. Evidence was taken on an alleged overcharge on coal; also on pastry cooks’ small goods.

The Tribunal received a complaint with reference to the price asked for on account of property, which had been referred to Wellington for instructions, The North Canterbury Coal Merchants and Dealers’ Association have arranged to meet the Tribunal tomorrow to give evidence regarding the cost of hndling and delivery of coal to tho consumer in justification of their request to increase the margin allowed for working expenses by the Board of Trade.

Other complaints before the Tribunal are of a more serious nature but nothing at present is available for publication, as further investigat’ons are pending. WELLINGTON CASE. WELLINGTON, March 25. Tile first ease under the new Board of Trade was heard before Mr Page, S.M., to-day.

Bertie Smith, a Wellington grocer, was charged that on 30th January, he sold Mils Hazel Edith Carroll, of Auckland two bottles Mellin’s Food at a. price unreasonably high, viz., 3s 6d per bottle. -

Mr Prenderville, Crown Law Officer, outlining the case for the prosecution, said that defendant advertised himself as a. food specialist and refused to sell at cut-rate,, prices. He was a cash grocer, and not faced with the likelihood of certain losses and expenses often incurred by the ordinary family grocers. On January 30th Mrs Carroll called at his shop and asked for two bottles of Mellin’s Food, tendered ss, but the servant of defendant said that the price was 3s 6d per bottle. She expostulated, hut as it was essential for her to have the food she paid the price demanded. Latef—slre made a report to -the Board of Trade, which ascertained that the shop had purchased the stock at 25s 6d a dozen, less 2} per cent. The price charged in other shops was 2s 9d, so the profit on the line was 40.8 per cent., while other grocers were satisfied with 24.66 per cent., which counsel contended showed Smith was making more than a fair profit. Defendant gave evidence that his profit on the sale of the line in question was 22.6 per cent. Most grocers aimed to make 25 to 30 per cent, on the turnover consequent upon breakages, etc. Mellin’s Food cost 30 per cent, to handle, compared with just over 11 per cent, for the rest of the stock.

James Mclntosh, accountant, said an examination of defendant’s books show T ed the profit on the whole of bis business was low-—too low to cover the contingent risks of a grocery business. The records for a period of about 65months, up to 6th June last, showed a net profit on a turn over of £12,817. At his Courtenay Place shop the profit amounted only to about 2s per £IOO. The nett profit on Berhampore and Courtenay Place businesses combined was 2.04 per cent, on £21,000 odd. That was also too low- a rate of profit. The average usually aimed at in a similar business was 25 per cent, gross and 5 per cent net. Defendant’s profit on the sale of food worked out at 32.11 per cent. This, he asserted, w r as not an unreasonable profit for a special line. The gross and net profits on the Berhampore business were 18 and 10 pel cent,. Defendant, recalled, said Mclntosh advised him to increase his prices hut he had increased prices only where prices to him were increased. This bad no effect on Tiis profits.

This closed the case, and after counsel addressed the Court, his Worship reserved Ins decision.