ALLEGED PROFITEERING.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3547, 7 August 1920, Page 8

ALLEGED PROFITEERING.

THE SUEDE SHOES CASH}

AU CBZLAND, A ug. 5.

The hearing of a. charge aga’inSt ‘Dadle_v’s Ltd._, of having sold a. pair iof ladies‘ suede co-u’rt shoes at an un-El-easonably high price was continued lto-day, when evidence» for the de\felldlan‘: was called. I Vvilljam Holdsworth, of 21. firm of ;W'h(JlßS{ll€ boot: merchants, said the gshoes in queSfion"wel-e of good quality 52111-'1 were likely 10 .'~§o um‘ 01' fashion ‘at any time. In O]~rG-Hing up :1 line of li-.he type indicated witness said his Lfirin always put on (‘Xl'l'3L profit lo l’r.:onlpensz'xle for the extra risk in handling. l--lo looked to get from ten to fifteen per cent. ex’rra pl-ofii-. People who purchased suede court shoes were usually well able to afford the extra price paid for them. The usual practice for costing lines of high grade goods w'as to put fifty per cent. on landed cost. It was oust-oxnary to put on extra profit’ on better class lines to compensate for the small profit‘ 0!: CHlOl‘ li'nes. A ‘l'ofLlilel' would be justified in I'eeognisillg the principle of I"eplaceillerat Value in charging for his goods.

111 ‘-“t‘Pl.‘.' ro'co'u:ls:*-I .wiilless..Said fhe shoes sold by the defendants were ::‘lloveliy.lillo and were only worn by a certain class of fashionable people_ .\lanui‘actul'er.< were new iv.-ying to iniroduce a ciitfei-ent typr» of suede .s";loE>‘.~‘. If this \\‘el'(-‘ done. the pl'(>s<?ni7 I’a3}:icnnJhlo_ type of ;~:'no.~s would be dead stock. Percy Sil:lv.‘. nialiagvr of the boar r.l:=.paz'r:nvllt for D.lessr.< S2ll‘good; Son‘; mil Ewen, ‘said suede shoes were ’_:'E‘2lChel'ollS to handle. : I A member of another firm of boot] ’znpol‘ters said his firm dnclined to; L.-noel: the linw in question nwing to‘ he great" risk in selling it. This firm‘; ‘iad been compelled to sell a line of “uede-topped boots for 15/ when’ they had cost‘ £2 5/, owing to their going mt of f2_lsllion. ‘L-lxpex-1' evidence regai-ding the quality of the siioes produced was given 53; U.«'illianl James Hmnmill. »"nlln_.s<-*1

we-.s~ proceeding to ct-oss—ex2unine wit:-‘ uesg regarding: the necessity of chal'g—‘ ‘mg extra profits Cll fa.s]liollab‘le arti-W cles, when the Ina;-;'Estl':xte .~;a'ui H9l fmtbted if that phase of El 9 case was rvat-2:-1:11. He added that he had con.",‘l.<:sw.ml the hatance sheet, of the de—i"\2:z‘..:>.ll~.‘ c:o111p:1ny and found that, not'.*.‘?t‘.lst:~ndil\_2' the I‘i.<kd.<. the (:oml’)any ‘-:1.-.:‘~. been o.t>‘.r-. tn rnalie .1 profits of \':.,Out £4ooo‘ on the year's Working. After discussion wtih counsel the .magi.-t.z'::te said he warx‘ quite satisfied there was great 1-Tsk in selling fashivvnable shoes. _That had been established by evidence. Ebenezér&Giles Pinker, accountant and anditoii. s"aid the value of ‘the f;'OO(lS dealt with by the company dur. ing the _\'em- {V7IS £15490 landed cost. Overhead charges émounted to £5022, nmking a total of £20,512. (Twtal .~<ale.~ were'.£24,3o6. leaving a, fprofit of £3794, amounting to 15.66 per cent_ 1 'l‘!~.e- '?2lse was adjnm'ned.