A PAIR OF BOOTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 May 1921, Page 5

A PAIR OF BOOTS.

PRICE OF SPECIAL ARTICLE.

PROFITEERING CHARGE FAILS,

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. Reserved decision was given to-day by Mr. Cutten, S.M., in the case in which E. E. Leaning was charged with selling a pair of boots at the price of £4 19s 6d, which was alleged to be unreasonably high Mr. Cutten .said the real defence was that the cost of making the boots was high, because the defendant made individual pairs of boots, usually to order, and to produce a good result he used expensive materials, and selected only the best portions of leather, involving a great deal of waste; also that highly-paid menf were employed, and from the circumstances of his business, were not kept fully employed, which :.gain involved a great deal of waste. Finally,, his work was for the most part hand work, which, from the point of view of cost, was at. a great disadvantage compared with the modern methods of manufacture. < A most curious feature about the defence was a c-aim by defendant that he would be justified in charging a veiy high price for the boots in question because they were surgical boots, whiph required great skill to make, but these were not made for the purchaser’s feet., They were a pair of stock boots. Defendant’s contention that, though k they were made for stock there was a remote chance of selling the boots was a fair ground for charging a high price, and this certainly gave considerable weight to the contention of the informant that defendant would never have been such a fool as to make these boots for stock purposes—that they were, in fact, a pair of misfits, and a small amount of deviation from the normal enabled him to sell them to a customer who was not suffering from a fallen arch, but whose measure fairly corresponded to the make of these boots.

Hie Worship said the main question was what such boots would cost to manufacture. It was stated by a witness that the boots could be made at a factory and sold retail at a very little over half the price charged by defendant. Such evidence, however, could only make a prima facie case, and would be answered by defendant as to the actual cost under Iris system. Disallowing all items of costs which should be disallowed, and making reductions in other items, the items remaining add up to a sum which, if increased by the addition of a profit not unreasonably high, will reach .the vicinity of the price charged. The information was dismissed.