SERIES OF MOTOR DEALS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 208, 3 September 1925, Page 9

SERIES OF MOTOR DEALS.

MOTOR MECHANIC INDICTED.; PROFESSIONS OF OWNERSHIP. ! YOUNG MAX BEFORE COOlf"~ : Four indictable charges connected ; vrith tile theft of motor vehicles and three summary charges of j . passing valueless cheques upon Auck- • land banks were preferred against a; < young married man, Richard Dyer 1 Downey (26 >. motor c:echanie T of 1 Massey Road, iknurcwa. who appeared, j at the Police Court to-day before Mr. J. < W. Poynton. S3L : The indictable charges covered aj' period of just over two months, and ■ were: That on June 15 Downey com- ' mitted the theft of a Harley-Davidson ; motor cycle and side-oar, valued at ' £13-5, the property of Motor Replace- ! ments. Ltd.: that on July 25 he committed the same offence by obtaining j a Chevrolet motor car engine, valued at I ( £130. the property of Hoyes Motors. • < Ltd.; that on August 6 he obtained i ■ from Messrs. Fletcher and Maddocks ! , two cheques drawn en the National j Bank, at Newmarket, for a total of £S-3 , i by falsely representing a Chevrolet i car as his own property, and that he ! had received it in part payment for a j Rugby car; and that on August IS he ] committed the theft of a Hudson car j valued at £300, the property of William I Stanley Miller. The summary charges i ■were: That on August 5 Downey ob- ! tamed a tin of benzine and 11/ in money ; from Messrs. Fletcher and Maddocks by } means of a valueless cheque for £1 j drawn upon zite Bank of New Zealand; j and that on August 6 he obtained a { sum of £5 from the same firm: and on J July 24 £2 from John David Regan by i similar false pretences. ! Accused pleaded guilty to all i charges, and was convicted and re- j' manded for sentence until September i 17 at the Supreme Court, Course of the Transactions. ■ Evidence was given by the sales j manager of Hoyes Motors. Ltd., that ; ' accused obtained a Chevrolet engine '• from his arm on July "25 for £130, and j paid £4-3 as deposit. On August 6 ; accused went to the premises of Messrs. j Fletcher and Maddocks, and represented I 1 that he owned a Chevrolet car. This he ! f was ■prilling to dispose of for £110, but J eventually accepted £S5 for it, being , ] paid in two cheques of £-30 and £55 respectively. William Stanley Miller, garage pro- i ! prietor. said that on July 25 accused i ' I came into his garage in a five-seater i j Chevrolet, and wanted to buy a seven- ! , sealer car. He was shown a Hudson, j !at a price of £300. He said he would ; ' j buy it if ■witness would take the Chevro- ' I let, allowing him £150 as part payment.! ' Accused finally agreed to accept £140 \ j for it. leaving a debt of £I«30 on the | ! Hudson. Witness was informed that ] the Chevrolet was free of encumbrance, i jar.-i accused signed a document to that I effect. He also signed a hire-and-pur- i j chase agreement. No farther payments '■ j were made on the Hudson, and witness ; J had taken possession of it again. Wit- j J ness .now had to pay £90 to Hoyea j ! Motors, Ltd.. or else return the Chevro- ' ' let. j ' Exchanged a "Speed Launch." , William John Rushton, motor dealer, ' , said that accused came to his premises • on July 25 in a seven-seater motor car i ' and said he had exchanged a speed! launch for it. He wanted to sell the I , car for £150. Witness said he would j try to find a purchaser. A sum of £2-5 j j -.ras handed to accused as deposit, the j j balance of £125 to be paid when the '•ar ; j was sold. On August 10 Mr. Miiler j J seized the Hudson, and accused, when • j interviewed by witness, said he was j sorry he had played him a dirty trick, | j and refunded the £25 deposit by a j cheque, which was dishonoured when j presented at the bank. I Robert Lea idoine. milk vendor, of: 3fanurewa, said that accused had offered j to sell him a Harley-Davidson motor; cycle and sidecar for £75. representing that a profit of £30 could be made on the resale of it. On June 25 witness j bought it, giving a cheque for £70. He ! left the machine with accused to sell j j again, and about July 17 witness was i I informed by accused that a purchaser J had given £100 for it. Accused did not j give witness the £100 then, and witness j did not ask him for it for some time. On August 6, after being pressed on I several occasions for the money, accused j paid o - - -T a sum of £85, consisting of I two cheques, one for £50 and the other I for £35, both of which tvere signed by I Messrs. Fletcher and Maddocks. Witness cashed the £50 cheque, but found payment for the other stopped. He then saw accused, who gave him £20 in cash. Senior Detective Ward, who conducted the prosecution, stated in evidence that on August 25 he interviewed accused in respect of the charges, and obtained a statement from him. In this accused, stated that ie had paid a dej posit of £45 on the Chevrolet, with the idea that he mieht be able to demonstrate with it. *ix he later thought he j would undertake taxi work, and wanted f a larger car. J Accused, who pleaded guilty to all the i charges, was convicted and remanded) for sentence. 1