PRICE OF A COSTUME.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1920, Page 5

PRICE OF A COSTUME.

£IOO FINE FOR PROFITEERING.

CASE AGAINST JOHN COURT'S.

By Tetepaph.—Press Association Auckland, Last Night. A fine of £IOO and costs was inflicted this morning by Mr. Poynton, S.M., in giving judgment at the Magistrate's Court in an action taken by the Auckland Price Investigating Tribunal against John Court. Ltd., drapers, Queen Street. In reviewing the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate mentioned that defendant was charged with offering for sale a lady's costume at the price of twelve guineas, being a price which was unreasonably high. It was bought by the defendant company from the Kaiapoi Woollen Company, and cost them nett £7 Is 6d. Section 32 (1) of the Board of Trade Act, 1919, says: "Every person commits an offence who, either as principal or agent, sells or supplies, or offers for sale or supply, any goods at a price which is unreasonably high." Sub-section 2 of the same section says: "The price of goods shall be deemed to be unreasonably high if it produces, or is calculated to produce, more than a fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit." It was very ably argued by Mr. Johnstone, on behalf of defendants, said Mr. Poynton, that the prices at which articles of this kind were sold showed an actual loss when averaged. There were several costumes of the same kind of a rather exclusive color and design, not readily saleable, and likely to be unsold at the end of the season. It was proved that the rate of profit on readily saleable goods in the trade was 33 1-3 per cent., and on risky goods like these costumes, from 50 to 60 per cent. At the price asked for this -costume the gross profit would be 78 per cent., or, without the discount allowed by the Kaiapoi Company, 71 per cent. "In my opinion au offence was committed when the price was asked," continued the Magistrate, "and it does not matter what became of the article afterwards. It might have been sold at a higher price than that asked, or at a loss, ov given away or destroyed as worthless. A great deal of evidence was submitted as to profits on the defendants' business, and particularly on the mantle department, which deals with such goods, as are here in question. Although this has little relevancy, it should be taken into consideration when imposing a penalty. The figures submitted, which aro admitted by the prosecution to be correct, prove that the profits of this branch of the business have been for the past two years very small; indeed, less than a fair return on the capital employed in it. In fairness to defendants this should be known, as it shows that this demand for an unreasonable price cannot be general in the department. For these reasons, the penalty will not be severe, but as profiteering is such a grave evil a substantia! fine will be imposed." Defendant would be fined £IOO and ordered to pay costs. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O, plus the amount of the fine and co3ts,