THE WRONG MAN

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 399, 6 July 1928, Page 13

THE WRONG MAN

FOOTWEAR INSPECTOR MAKES MISTAKE INFORMATION DISMISSED Cansiderins that the action had been brought against the wrong man, and that in any case, no intentional breach had been made, Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M. dismissed an information laid’ against E. E. Kitchener, shoe store manager, by the inspector of footwear, at the Magistrate's Court this morning. It was said by the inspector that the shoes produced in Court had been displayed for sale by defendant. They were unstamped, although there was a large proportion of carboard used in their manufacture. He admitted that the makers of the shoes, an English Arm, rarely offended by leaving the class of shoe concerned unstamped, but urged that they had passed through so many hands that there was no excuse for them being displayed for sale In that condition. For the defence Mr. L. F*. Leary submitted that the firm "which made the shoes complained of was most careful in complying with the regulations. In its shoes the stamp was cut in and not merely inked on as was usually the case. It was inevitable that an occasional slip should occur when the great numbers made were taken into consideration. In any case, continued counsel, the action was brought against the wrong man. The shoes complained of were displayed for sale in a branch shop in Newmarket Mr. Kitchener was neither manager of that shop nor proprietor of the company which owned both. In counsel’s opinion, which was also shared by the Magistrate, if any action should have been brought, the company should have been the “defendant.

Had the company been sued there would have been no penalty imposed as the breach was but a technical one.