PRICE ORDER

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 March 1942, Page 3

PRICE ORDER

CRITICISED BY MAGISTRATE. BUTCHERS PROSECUTED IN CHRISTCHURCH. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, March 17. Twenty-eight Christchurch butchers who, it was stated by counsel for the defence, “had deliberately courted prosecution so that the injustices and absurdities of a price order made by the Price Tribunal, which made business virtually impossible could be aired in Court,” were charged in the Magistrate's Court with selling meat at a price not in conformity with the price order. With the exception of one defendant, who disputed the facts and against whom a charge was dismissed, all the persons charged were convicted and ordered to pay costs. Defendants admitted the breaches but pleaded not guilty only to bring the facts before the Court, said counsel. Mr A. W. Brown, prosecuting, said no increase was to be made in the price of any goods without the authority of the Price Tribunal. When inspectors visited defendants’ shops it was found that small increases in the prices allowed had been made. The increases for the most part were small, but aggregated a large sum when the amount of meat sold was considered. As Mr C. S. Thomas (counsel for the defence) would say, butchers today were labouring under terrific difficulties. Mr Thomas said the main argument to show the difficulties under which butchers were labouring was that the tribunal had fixed a maximum price for the retailer but none for the producer. The obvious result was that prices had risen for butchers and meat had to be sold at a loss because butchers could not pass on the increases. Tests showed, Mr Thomas said, that the loss on a beef carcase was £1 4s 3d, and on a sheep carcase 3s lid. The magistrate, Mr E. C. Lcvvcy: It seems to be.a fit and proper case for the Bench to make some comment. It is difficult to understand—in fact, it is more than difficult; it is incrediblethat any tribunal in face of the figures produced in Court today, which have been proved and verified, should make such a basic order. The order does not apparently take into account fluctua tions or differences in conditions. It is a dogmatic, fixed and inflexible lule. The rights of the public need to be safeguarded, but not at the of butchers who, in e^ ect > wou ¥ b £ is ced out of business by the order. It is incredible to realise that such an order has ever been made.