FIXATION OF PRICES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24415, 28 September 1940, Page 5

FIXATION OF PRICES

BREACHES OF REGULATIONS MERCANTILE FIRMS PROSECUTED NOMINAL FINES IMPOSED Stated'to be the first of their kind in the district, prosecutions brought in the City Police Court yesterday resulted in nominal fines being inflicted on five local mercantile firms for breaches of the Prices Stabilisation Emercency Regulations. The defendant firms were: Charles Kent Couston, trading under the name of Charles William Couston, Henry Berry and Co., Neill and Co., R. Wilson and Co., and Charles H. Tucker and Co., and they were charged before.Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., with having'sold goods at a price higher than that fixed by Regulation 5 of the regulations, such increase not having been authorised by the Price Fixing Tribunal. Mr J B Thomson appeared"’for Couston. the other defendants being represented by Mr J>S. Sinclair. Mr H. S. Adams * conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Department of Internal Affairs. Case for the Prosecution s “'The department is not concerned whether prices ought to be regulated or . controlled or with questions arising out of the administration of the system,”. said Mr Adams in opening the case for the prosecution. “ The fact remains that prices are controlled and merchants must observe the law regarding price fixation," These were the first prosecutions of their kind in ' the district, Mr Adams continued, but the firms in question were all-in close touch with the Price Tribunal, and therefore should be acquainted with the proceedings regarding prices. In respect of Neill and Co., Wilson and Co. and Tucker and Co., the informations ;all related to the sales of salmon, but it was not suggested that the defendants had wilfully committed breaches of the regulations. It was suggested, however, that, knowing the importance of the matter,, they should have exercised more care. The charges against Berry and Co., which dealt with the sale of grease-proof paper, might be described as open-eyed offences. The firm had obtained small quantities of the paper, and had rationed it among its customers, the explanation being that it was not considered worth while to ask for a-fixation of price for such a small quantity. No Profiteering There was no intention of flouting the tribunal, nor was there any of profiteering, Mr Sinclair contended. The sale by Messrs Wilson was due to a bona fide mistake. The secretary of the Wholesale Merchants’ Association in Wellington had issued a circular on March 6. the heading of which announced that the prices of a certain brand of salmon at all main ports except Auckland, would be 15s 4d for ones and 9s 2d for halves. Apparently this information was taken as correct by the local merchants, but unfortunately it was mentioned in a footnote that the prices applied only to Christchurch. The manager had acted on this information, but when the mistake was pointed out to him he ad- . justed- the matter with his clients. The other offence was due to a mistake by an invoice clerk. With regard to Neill and Co., the circumstances were similar and there was no suggestion that an unduly high price had been charged;. The charge against -Tucker and Co. should never have been laid, counsel continued, as the firm had merely procured a small quantity of salmon from a retail firm to oblige a customer, and had made practically no profit for their trouble. The defendant, moreover, was fully aware of these facts. In the circumstances, counsel asked the court to dismiss this information :as trivial. Berry and Co.’s transaction v was only a small one, and the firm did not think it worth while to delay the sale while waiting for the decision of the tribunal. There was no suggestion that the rate of profit was unduly high, and in all probability had the prices been put before the tribunal they would have been authorised. “Since price control was introduced,” Mr Sinclair pointed out. merchants have received between 200 and 300 circulars regarding changes in prices. It is therefore conceivable that mistakes have been, and will continue to be made. The merchants are trying to play fair with the public, and in time, there is no doubt that satisfactory co-ordination with the tribunal will result.” A Vexatious Prosecution After reviewing- the evidence his Worship said that in the circumstances the prosecution against Tucker and Co. was vexatious and unnecessary, and the case would -therefore be dismissed as trivial. With regard to other informations he could not find that there had been any -deliberate flouting of die regulations. Wilson and Co. would therefore be fined £2 with costs (10s) on one charge and £3 and costs on the other, while Neill and Co. would be fined £2 with costs on each charge, solicitor’s fee in all cases being £2 2s. Berry and Co. would be fined £4, with costs (10s) and,solicitor’s fee £2 2s on one charge and convicted and discharged on the other. The charge against Couston related to the sale of a blowlamp which the defendant had sold at the replacement price of £1 7s fid, instead of at the authorised price of £1 Is 9d. Mr Thomson, on behalf of the defendant, said that the lamp would have ■- cost £ 1 10s to replace, and the price represented the landed cost of a new shipment plus his profit. The customer got good value for his money. A fine of £2 with costs (10s) and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s) was imposed.