PROFITEERING CHARGES.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 June 1920, Page 4

PROFITEERING CHARGES.

SEVERAL IIIO.KIIIMS CITED.

(Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 14

Certain charges; instigated by tin Price Investigation Tribunal, came on for hearing before Mr McCarthy, S.'.M. at the Magistrate’s Court today. Hastie, Bull and Pickering, of Clu’.stclmrch, were charged with having sold to George Hart Christies, tho Price Investigation Tribunal’s investigating officer, a “ Rig Ben ” alarm clock at the price of 255, which was unreasonably high. Similar charges were laitl against • 1 <: following Christchurch firms:—G. 'V. Drayton and Co., Ltd., Mason Strutimrs and Co., Ltd., and E. Recco, Ltd. The offences, were alleged to iis. o ' <■- curred on April 20th:

A. J. White, Ltd., were charged t .r offering for sale on the date mentioned a “ Big Ben ” alarm clock at 255. The Drapery Importing Coy., of Christchurch, were charged with having offered for sale on April 27th, to George Hart Christie, a coat at 455, which price was unreasonably high. Brown and Durea, Ltd., of Wellington,' were charged with having unlawfully counselled another person (Hastie, Bull and Pickering, Ltd.), on March Ist. to commit an offience under Section 3 ' of tlie Board of Trade Act, 1919, by'asking and advising Hastie, Bull and Pickering, Ltd., to offer for sale alarm do us A :> price which is unreasonably liigu.

: Brown and Durea were diurgid abo with a similar offfince on the same date, it being alleged .that they asked and advised A. Manson, of Christchurch, to offer alarm docks at an unreasoiisblv high price.

Air AV. C. McGregor, Dunedin, ard Air A. T. Donnelly appeared Id.- the Crown. ’’ ,

Sir John Findlay appeared a'one lor ltoede, Ltd. Air T. P. Skcrratt appeared al. in- for Draytons. /

Tlie latter Counsel appeared join*tv for A. J. AVhite, Hastie, Bull and Pickering, .and Ala son and Struthers.

THE HEARING Oh' CAS'-'S. CHRISTCHURCH, Jun,* - I

The case against Hastie, Bull and Pickering was taken 'first. Air McGregor, in opening for the Crown, said that in addition to local cases, there were two charges against Brown and Durea, who controlled the trade in “ Big Ben ” alarm docks in .the Dominion, i.f roi'iiselling and procuring sales at unreasonably’ high, l prices. Counsel defined the Act, and said that for its purpose, a price was unreasonable if it produced more than a fair and reason role rat-* of commercial profit. The purchasing and selling prices and profit in cadi case were as follows:—Mason, Struthers, 12s —-255, 108 per cent profit;'Hastie, Bull, and Pickerilig the same ; and W. White 14s—25s, 78 per cent ; Reece, Ltd., 15s 9d—2ss, 78 per cent; Draytons, 14s 3d—--255, 75 per cent. His Worship would doubtless be told all about the cost of replacement, and average profits, and the hardships of isolating particular untides; but the meaning of Section 32 was plain, and a wider relation of business custom might become applicable only in considering the penalty. Evidence as to the purchase of the docks was given by George H. Christie (Secretary of the Christchurch Price Investigating Tribunal). '•>

SIR J. FINDLAY’S .ADDRESS. CHRISTCHURCH, June 14. Sir John Findlay, for the defence, said that if the Crown’s contentions were right, then Section 32 had brought

commercial chaos, and the end of legitimate business. The fixation of prices was no new system. It was done in connection with motor-cars with,beneficial results. He contended that the effect of fixing prices had been to keep the price "“of “ Big Ben ” at a lower price in the market, notwithstnding all tin 1 war conditions, than other clocks competing against it. lie detailed the causes of tlie rise in tlie price of “ Big Ben ” and said that at 255, tlie profit was less than before the war. No increase had been made in the price till tho stocks bought at a low figure Imd been depleted. The question: Why did Mason and Struthers who bought, at 12s sell at !255? seemed difficult to answer, but tlie firm had bought under n moral and legal obligation to .sell at tlie price fixed by the manufacturers, and tho only honourable course open to them was to comply with that obligation. Only by so complying could the firm be assured getting future supplies. That was what differentiated tlie.present eases from ordinary cases of profiteering. Tine Court had already laid down that such contracts were legally unassailable, and that any departure from the conditions imposed could he made the basis of an action for damages. The net profits made by hardware merchants in the period 1914-1919 averaged 7) per cent. Counsel went into the questions of replacement values, and depreciated ciirrenfcy, and in his concluding remarks said somehow or other it suited a certain class of public man to make profiteer hunting, tlie true and radical remedy for the cost of living. If they wanted to cure the high cost of living, they must get down to fundamental causes. He had a profound respect for Mr W. G. McDonald, of tlie Board of Trade. Let such a man as Air McDon- 1 aid have his way and prepare regulations | under Section 26 of the Act, and then a real advance would he made. Section 32 would end in killing the Empire’s honest industry and commerce. It would not affect the cost of living, and would leave the root causes untouched. Counsel for defence were not present to meet this case alone, but to fight for an important commercial principle. They argued that to extend that Section 32 killed business. It would find no acceptance from His Worship, but that a broad and fair view should he taken pi the whole of the circumstances. .lolin Wilm'ot Duncan, Alanager for Brown and Durea, said that owing to the trade in alarm clocks generally being disorganised by price cutting, n representative of the manufacturers of “ Big Ben ’’ had visited the Dominion, as the result of which a better system of selling tl-.fk clock had been adopted. It provided the fixing of a price for tlie wholesaler and one for the retailer, based on a fair i margin of profit, and the keeping of the J price as low as possible to customers. He detailed the various rises in thfc landed cost of the clocks, but had not concluded Iris evidence when the Court adjourned till to-morrow.