SHOES OF FASHION.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1920, Page 5

SHOES OF FASHION.

PINE IN AUCKLANII CASK. SECURITY FOR APPEAL FIXED. By Teleffraoh,—Press Ansn.—Copxrljht. Auckland, Last Night, At the Magistrate's Court this afternoon, Mr. J. E. Wilson, S.M., gave his judgment in the profiteering charge preferred at the instance of the Board of Trade against the hoot merchant firm of Dadley's, Ltd. In giving judgment, his Worship said the facta proved or admitted were that 011 April 1, the defendant sold one pair of black suede court shoes (ladies) for the sum of £3 7s lid, which was claimed by ihe informant to be an unreasonably high price. The defendant landed the shoes into the shop at Auckland p.* a «ost of £1 18s 3d. The defendant said the price was made up as follows: Landed cost. £i 18s 3d; overhead charges, 10s 2d; added on the ground that the shoe was a fashionable one and might have to be sold at a loss, 4s (Id; added on the ground that the shoes had been purchased at a cost lower than that ruling at the time of pricing, 5s 7d; total £3 7s 6d. "It seems clear," proceeded the Magistrate, "that the shoe in respect of the Bale of which the charge is laid was of a very fashionable type, and that there was more risk in dealing in such types than in dealing in what one may call everyday lines. This being so, 1 think it reasonable that the dealer should have such a higher price as will reasonably compensate him for his risks. I have to consider whether the price charged by the defendant in this instance goes beyond that reasonable figure, and taking all the evidence I haye come to the conclusion that it does. I have no hesitation in saying that a charge of £3 7s Gd for an article which is landed in the defendant's place of business at a cost of £1 ISs 3d is, in my opinion, unreasonably high." The -Magistrate added that the bal-ance-sheet for the year ending March 31, 1920, shows that the defendant company has a capital of £SOOO. During the year covered by the balance-sheet produced a net profit was made of £.1031, and this after allowing for the ealary to the managing director of £SOO, in addition to other costs of conducting the business. The result of seven years' trading was that the defendant company, after paying a.dividend of 2 per cent on; its capital, and a yearly salaty of £SOO to the managing director, had still its capital of £SOOO intact, and in addition to that a sum of «£10,012 of accumulated profit. The defendant company was fined £75 and £7 7s costs. At the request of Mr. McVeajrli (for the defend ant) to fix security for appeal on- general "rounds, his Worship fixed the amount at £IOO. . j