PRICE OF A COSTUME.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2219, 23 December 1920, Page 3

PRICE OF A COSTUME.

CAGE AGAINST JOHN COURT, . LTD. PINE OP £IOO IMPOSED. Auckland, Tuesday, Mr Boynton, S.AL, fined John Court, Ltd., Queen Street, drapers, £IOO, as the result of an aid ion by the Price'lnvestigating Tribunal for offering for sale; a lady's costume at 12 guineas,, the costume having been bought from the Kaiapoi AVoollen Company, and cost them net €7 Is lid. The Court mentioned that this demand for an unreasonable price ■was not general in the mantle department. In giving judgment, Mr I’oyntoC said it bad been very ably argued that the prices at which the articles of this kind were sold showed an actual loss when averaged. There were several costumes of the same* kind of rather exclusive colour and design, not readily saleable, and likely to be unsold at the end of the season. It was proved that the rale of profit on‘readily saleable goods in the trade was 33A, and on rifcky goods, like these costumes, 50 to 00 per cent. At the price asked for this costume the gross profit would be 78 per cent., or, without the discount allowed by (ho Kaiapoi Company, 71 per cent. “In my opinion, ’■ Mr Boynton proceeded, “the offence was committed when the price was asked, and it does not matter what became of the article afterwards. It might have been sold at a higher price than asked, or at a loss, given away, or destroyed as worthless. A great deal of evidence was. submitted as to the profits on the defendants’ business, and particularly on the mantle department, which deals with such goods as those in question. Although this lias little relevancy, it should be taken into consideration. The figures submitted, and admitted to bo correct by the prosecution, prove that the profits of this branch have been for years very small indeed; less ban a fair return on the capital employed in it. In- fairness to defendants this should be known, as it shows this"demand, for unreasonable prices cannot be general in the department. For these reasons the penalty will not be severe, but, as profiteering's such a grave eyil, a substantial fine will be imposed.” Defendant was fined £IOO, and ordered to pay costs. Securtiy for appeal was fixed at £2O, plus the fine and costs.