THE FULL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1920, Page 5

THE FULL COURT.

"BIG BEN" CASE DISMISSED. MELLIN'S FOOD FINE UPHELD. By Telegraph.—Press Association Wellington, Last Night. The Full Court delivered judgment this afternoon in the Big Ben alarm clock profiteering cases, an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate (Mr. S. E. McCarthy). ' In dismissing the information against Hastie, Bull and Pickering Ltd., and other Christchurch ironmongery firms, and Brown and Bureaux, Wellington, agents for the manufacturers, on a charge of profiteering in alarm clocks, the judgment stated that the principles of all the statutes must be applied to this statute, namely to see what mischief was aimed at by the statute, and the remedy which Parliament had applied to it. The mischief in this case was the making of abnormal profits owing to circumstances of the war. By the use of the word "commercial profits," it was clear the Legislature did not intend to interfere with the usual and ordinary business methods of commercial men. A fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit must mean what fair traders regard as a proper rate of profit to be charged, and it imist not be left to each individual magistrate to decide oil his own view in each particular ease. The fixation at a price below which the articles are not to be sold was a recognised custom existing before the war, and that established rule to sell stocks in hand at the new price fixed by any new scale of price bad also been in use before the war, and such was not profiteering, for if retailers had not sold the supply would have been cut off by the manufacturers, and that could not have been for the benefit of the people of New Zealand.

As to the principle of selling at the replacement cost, the Legislature never intended that traders should carry on at a loss. Jf this principle was not followed traders would bo prevented from recouping part of their losses and providing against future possible losses. The view taken by the C'rown that each trader should sell at a fair profit on the price of the cost paid by him would result in the necessity for an enquiry in each particular case, and the price at. which the article would be sold would have to be determined by the time at which the article was bought. As to the point of certain firms buying at wholesalers' prices and selling at retailers' prices, such a custom was usual and beneficial to the public, and if prevented it would result in a smaller number of retailers carrying on business, and such would not be for the benefit of the public, which was to have as many retailers as possible. In the case is which Bertie Sm'th, piocer, of Wellington, appealed ngainst the conviction and fine in connection with the sale of Mellins' Food, th? Court found that the evidence that tlu< current pr : ce charged for Mellins' Food was 2s fld was quite clear, and it was also quite clear that appellant had sold it at a i price of 3s Grl. In the opinion of the , Court tlio price charged was an unI reasonably high one, and the conviction [should be affirmant