PROFITEERING CHARGES.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1920, Page 3

PROFITEERING CHARGES.

(Per Press Association.) DECISION RESERVED

CHRISTCHURCH, June 16

The charges of alleged profiteering against several loon.l hardware merchants and Brown and Dureau, of Wellington /were continued to-day. In all the charges against Brown mid Dureau, of counselling, etc., pittas of “not guilty”’ wore Entered. , | In addressing the Court, Mr. C. L\ Skerrett submitted that the cases were so trumpery as to cast discredit on those responsible for the prosecution in respect of the negligible; class of goods, was intended to cover up ts disinclination to take action in respect to basic lines. He submitted that in. evidence bad beeu adduced that tbe profits made bv any of the defendants was an unreasonable rate of commercial profit. i Mr Myers made an exhaustive analysis of the evidence in respect of what constitutes a fair rate of commercial profit, and submitted that it could only be determined upon' recognised commercial practices. The prosecution had not led any evidence to that point If the fixation of price was objected to there was ample power to make regulations abolishing or controlling the system, fie urged that' the question of the depreciation in the value i f money had a distinct bearing on die question of reasonable commercial profit. Mr W. C. MacGregor repudiated the opposing Council’s suggestions that Hm cases were trivial. The result of these case would largely determine whether the Act would remain a dead letter, or whether traders were to bo allowed to make' what profits they liked under the guise of what was called “commercial profits.” Ho contended that Section 32 was intended to refer to any individual transaction. The eases lie submitted were typical eases of profiteering which must be stopped in-order to avert something approaching an indiistriaT revolution in this country. The Magistrate reserved his decision until to-morrow’s sitting, at which the case against the Dominion Importing. Company will he taken.