“BIG BEN” CASES

Hokitika Guardian, 19 October 1920, Page 3

“BIG BEN” CASES

APPEAL DISMISSED. WELLINGTON, Oct. 15 The judgment of the Full Court was delivered this afternoon in tlie “Big Ben” alarm clock profiteering cases, an appeal from tlie decision of the Magistrate (Mr S. E. McCarthy) in dismissing the informations against Hastie, Bull, and Pickering, Ltd., and other Christchurch ironmongery firms, and Brown and Bureau of Wellington, agents for the manufacturers, on a charge of profiteering in alarm clocks. The judgment stated that the principles of all statutes must he applied to this statute, namely, to sec what mischief was aimed nt by the statute, and the remedy which Parliament had applied to it. The mischief in this case was the making of abnormal profits owing to circumstances of tlie war. By the use of the words “commercial profits” it was clear the Legislature did not intend to interfere with the usual and ordinary business methods of commercial men. A fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit must mean what fair traders would regard as a proper rate of profit to be charged, and it must not be left to each individual Magistrate to decide, on his own view, ip each particular case. The fixation by manufacturers of a price below which articles are not to be sold was a recognised custom existing before the war, and that the established rule was to sell stock in hand at the new price fixed by any new scale of price had also been in use before the war, and such was not profiteering, for if retailers l ad not so sold, the supply would have been cut off by the manufacturers, and that coud not hove been for the benefit of . the people of New Zealand. As to the principle of selling at replacement | cost, the Legislature never intended that traders should carry on at a loss. If this principle were ‘not followed traders would bo prevented from recouping part of their losses and providing against future possible losses, rhe view taken by the Crown that each trader should sell at a fair profit on file price paid by him would result in file necessity for an enquiry in each i particular case, and the price at which • file article would be sold would have to J >e determined by. the time at which j file article was bought. As to the point | if certain firms buying at wholesale j irices and selling as retailors, such a j custom was usual and beneficial to the . public. The custom, if prevented, would •esult in a smaller number of retailers ; carrying on business, and such would i lot he for the benefit of the public j vliich was to have as many retailers j is possible. The appeal was dismissed In the case in which Bertie Smith.rrocer, of Wellington appealed against i conviction and fine in connexion with file sale of Mellin’s food, the Court ound, on the evidence, that the eur•ent price charged for Mellin’s fool j vas 2s 9d, and it was quite clear He . ippellant had sold it at 3s fid. In the ipinion of the Court the price charg- j ‘d was an unreasonably high one, and j file conviction should lie affirmed. ■' —g—g