SHOES OF FASHION.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1920, Page 4

SHOES OF FASHION.

EXCESSIVE PRICE ARTICLE FOR TEE WEALTHY. By Telegraph —Press Association. ' Auckland, Last Night. The hearing of the charge against Dadiey'u, Ltd., of having sold a pair of ladies' suede court ehoea at an unerasonablv high price was continued to-day, when evidence for the defence was called. - ' William Holdsworth, of a : firm of wholesale boot merchants, said the shoes in question* were of good quality and were likely to go out of fashion at any time. In opening up a line of the type indicated, witness said Jug firm always put on extra profit to fiompensate for the extra risk Jn handling. He looked to get from ten to tyfteen per cent, profit. People, whopuroiiased suede court shoes were usually well able to afford the extra price paid fpr The usual practice for costing* lines of high-grade goods was to put fifty per cent, on the landed cost. It was customary to put on extra profit on fatter class lines to compensate for the «™an profit on other lines, and a retailer would be justified in reoogni|i»g the principle of the, replacement value in charging for his goods. In reply to counsel, witness said the shpes sold by defendants were a novelty line, and were only worn by a certain class of fashionable people; Manufacturers were now trying to Introduce a different type of suede shoes, and. if this were done the present fashionable type of shoes would be dead stock. Percy Shaw, manager of the boot department for Messrs. Sargood, Son and Ewen, said suede shoes were treacherous to handle. A member of another firm of'boot importers said his firm, hud declined to J stock the line in question, owing to the great risk in selling it. His firm had. been compelled to sell ft lint of suede topped boots for 15s, when they had cost £2 as, owing to their going out of fashion. Expert evidence regarding the quality of the shoes produced was glren by William James HamnUll. Counsel was proceeding to .crossexamine witness regarding the necessity of charging extra profits on fashionable articles, when the magistiate said lie doubted if that phase of the case was material. He added tlujt he had considered the balance sheet pf the defendant company, and found'that notwithstanding riskg the' company had been able to make a profit of about i£4floo on the year's working. After discussion with coupsel, the magistrate said he was (juifij 1 ' satisfied there was a great risk in selling fashionable shoes, and that had men established by ths evidence. Ebenezer Giles Pinker, accountant and auditor, said the value of the goods deait with by the company during the year was £15,490 landed cost. Overhead charges amounted to £5022, miking a total of £20,512. The total sales were £24,306, leaving a, profit of £3794, amounting to 15.66 per cent. The case was adjourned. '