WHEAT REGULATIONS

Southland Times, Issue 18859, 26 June 1920, Page 6

WHEAT REGULATIONS

THE DUNEDIN PROSECUTION. MODIFIED PENALTIES IMPOSED. (Per United Press Association.) DUNEDIN, June 25. At the Supreme Court to-day the Registrar read the judgment of Mr Justice Sim, in the case heard on June 10, in tvhich the Crown sued for penalties in respect of sales of wheat, the defendants being A. Steven and Co., and William Joseph Love. His Honour said the evidence shower! that in the seven transactions which hart been traced, the total profit had only been £23, and 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 sake of the profit to be derived from then: and there did not appear any secrecy about the business. When the Assistant Wheat Controller investigated a complete disclosure was macie to him. The truth seemed to be that defendant Love thought the other merchants wen? evading the regulations, and he foolishly determined to disregard them, H:s Honour thought it would be a sufficient penalty if the defendant company paid a penalty of £ls in respect of each of the ten offences and if Lowe paid a nominal penalty of £1 in respect of each of them. In the case of the defendant company the sum of £485 was remitted in each of the ten cases and judgment given for £l5O in all. In the case of the other defendant £499 was remitted in each of the ten cases, and judgment was given against him for £lO in all.