HALF-CROWN SUITS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 October 1921, Page 6

HALF-CROWN SUITS.

A TAILOR’S PLACARD. CUSTOMERS BLOCK TRAFFIC. u A Wellington tailor, Henry Schnerdeman, was chargefl at the Wellington Magistrate’s Court, before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., that, as a result of placing a placard in his window advertising cheap suits, he induced persons to collect in Manners Street, so as to impede the traffic. Some of the suits were offered at 2s fid each. Sergeant Scott said that, on the morning of the sale, he noticed people waiting at the door of Schneideman and Sons at five o’clock. He was told by the constable who had been on duty before him that some people had waited all night outside the premises. One woman had been among the number who waited all night. At about eight o’clock in the morning the crown nact increased, and there were about 150 people outside the shop. He noticed that the whole conversation was about the “cheap suits.” Undoubtedly the cause of the congestion in the traffic was tbe placard placed in the window of Schneideman’s shop advertising cheap suits. Some suits were ticketed at “Two for 2s 6d,” -‘Four at 10s fid,” and in different prices up to 79s -fid. For the defence, Mr. Mazengarb stated that twelve months ago the most prominent actions in these. Courts were those in which merchants and shopkeepers were charged with selling goods at an unreasonably high price. “The antithesis of that,” said Mr. Mazengarb, “is the charge against the present defendant for offering suits for sale at prices that were so abnormally low as to attract a large number of buyers. To convict the defendant would bo to censure him for helping materially to reduce the cost of living.” He maintained there was nothing illusionary about the sale, as, the persons wno waited on the doorstep from midnight were in the Court to testify to the genuine quality of the suits sold to them for half a‘ crown. Mr. Mazengarb maintained that the prosecution must fail for each of the

following reasons: —“The offer o-f suits i at cheap prices was a lawful and laudable act; there was no proof that the crowd was drawn by the placard in the [window; there was no authority on reI cord showing this to be an offence; if ; the by-law seeks to interfere with the business of buying and selling and to prevent undercutting of price, it is void.”

After hearing the evidence, His Worship said he did not consider the defendant had done anything illegal. Under the circumstances of the case, he could not find that anything serious had been done, and consequently dismissed the case.