Alleged Profiteering

Hokitika Guardian, 10 May 1921, Page 3

Alleged Profiteering

INFORMATION DISMISSED

AUCKLAND, May 6

Reserved decision was given by Mr : E. C. Cutten S.M., in the wise in widen | E. E. I/eaning was charged with selling a pair of boots at a price ot £4 19; 6t! which was alleged to be unreason., jlv high. Mr Cutten said the real defence v that the cost of making the boots high because the defendant made individual pairs of boots, usually to oitLv. To produce a good result he used expensive materials, and selected only the best portions of the leather, involving a great deal of waste; also, that highlypaid men were employed and from the circumstances of his business were not kept fully employed which again involved a great deal of waste; and finally -s work was for most part hand work, which from the point of view of cost was at a great disadvantage as compared with modern methods of manufacture. The most curious feature about the defence was the claim by the defendant that he would be justified in charging a very high price for the boots in question because they were surgical boots, which required great skill to make. But these were not made for the purchaser’s feet. They were a pair of stock hoots. Defendant’s contention that, though made for stock, the remote chance of selling the boots was a fair ground for charging a high price, certainly gave considerable weight to the contention of the informant that the defendant would never have been such a fool as to make these boots for stock purposes, that they were, in fact a, pair of misfits and a small amount of deviation from the normal enabled him to sell them to a customer who was not suffering from a fallen arch, but whose measure fairly corresponded to the make of these boots.

His Worship said the main question was what such boots would cost to manufacture. It was stated by witnesses that the boots could be made in a factory and sold retail at very .nitle over half the price charged by the defendant. Suck evidence however, could only make a prima facie case, and would be answered by the defendant as to tlie actual cost under his system. “Disallowing all items of costs which should lie disallowed,” said bis Worship, “and making reductions in other items, the items remaining add up to a- sum which if increased by tlie addition of a profit not unreasonably high, will reach the vicinity of the price charged. 'I formation is dismissed.