PROFITEERING CHARGES.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 June 1920, Page 1

PROFITEERING CHARGES.

CASE AGAINST D.I.C

(Ter Tress Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 17

in tlie Magistrate’s Court, the D.I.C. was charged before Mr S. E. McCarthy S.M., with having committed an offence of profiteering by offering for sale on April 27th, 1920, .to George Hart Christie, a girl’s raincoat at the'price of 455, which price was unreasonably high. A plea of “ not guilty ” was entered. In outlining the vase for the Crown, Mr McGregor, K.C., said that the coat cost the D.I.C. 17s lid, plus 20 per cent or 21s (id, and had been offered for sale at 455, making a profit of 109.3 per cent on the coat. Three other coats of the same purchase had been bought and offered for sale at the following prices: 32s sd, cost, sale price 52s (id; 45s 3d cost, sale price 755; 38s 5d cost, sale price 755. Counsel submitted that that showed a clear breach of the Act. The average profit on the cost asked for the four coats was 79 per cent. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Christie, and for the defence by Oscar Clarence Cox ,manager of the D. 1.C., and Helen Mary Wraight, head of the underclothing and children’s outfitting department. It was contended that to pay its way the department should return 50 to 00 per cent. The cohts had been purchased and priced fairly as job lots in accordance with a recognised trade custom. The value of the coat was not based on what it cost but on what it would have cost had it been landed in the ordinary

in his address to the Court, Mr Skerrett pointed out that in fixing the selling price, regard must he had to the market value, anil tile risk of the nonsaleability of the remaining articles in that line also must be considered. Tlii; less a trader did that he would ultimately end in bankruptcy. The gross profits on the cost originally'fixed for the whole time was 78.5 per cent; As it cost about GO per cent to pay the department’s way only IS per cent was loft to cover the certificate of sale. The decision was reserved.