SUPREME COURT,

Hokitika Guardian, 25 June 1920, Page 3

SUPREME COURT,

\V HEAT PROFITEERING decision. (Per Press Association.)

DUNEDIN, June 23. At the Supreme Court to-day, the Registrar read a judgment of Justice Sim in the case heard on June 10th in which the Crown sued for penalties in respect of sales of wheat, the defendants being A. Steven and Co., and AVm. Jttsiuh Love. His Honour said the evidence, sihowed thja.t i|t flip so\ eu transactions which had been traced, the total profit was only £23. There , was no reason to suppose that the remaining three were more profitable. It was clear therefore that defendants did not engage in transactions for the same profit to lie derived from them. It did not appear there was any sec' recy about tlie business. AVhen the Wheat Controller investigated, a complete disclosure was made to him. The, truth seemed to be that the defendant, Love, thought the other merchants were evading the regulations apd he rather foolishly determined to disregard them. His Honour thought jt would be sufficient penalty if the defendant company paid a penalty of £ls in respect to each of the ten offences and if Love paid a nominal penalty of £1 in respect to each of them. In the case of the defendant company, tlie sum of £425 was remitted in each of the ten cases, and judgment given for £l5O in all. 1 In the case of other defendahts, £499 \ -was remitted in each of the ten cases and judgment given him for £lO iff ajl, '