DISMANTLED RADIO.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 234, 4 October 1927, Page 9

DISMANTLED RADIO.

REGULATIONS NOT CLEAR.

A FEE REVOKED.

Holding that the Post and Telegraph's regulations concerning the dismantling of a radio set were not as clear as they should be his Honor Mr. Justice Stringer allowed the appeal of A. W. Thomas against a fine imposed by Sir. Hunt on a charge of failing to dismantle an unlicensed radio set in accordance with the said regulations.

The set was in a house at Castor Bay, and the deputy radio inspector stated tnat the only thing missing was the accumulator, so that the set could have been adapted for use in half a minute or so. It was admitted by the defence that the set could have been put into working order in about a quarter of an hour, but it had actually been dismantled and was not in use, and was not intended to be used.

In answer to the judge Mr. Paterson, who appeared for the Department, said the aerial should have been taken down and something definite done to dismantle the set j the degree of dismantling should be substantial. He admitted there was some doubt as to the degree of dismantling demanded, and he would be glad if the Court would ■give a ruling. Mr. N. R. W. Thomas, who appeared for the appellant, said that the house was not occupied for several months, and the set had been distnantled effectively. As a matter of fact the appellant had desired to give evidence before the magistrate as to the degree of dismantling, but the magistrate had refused to hear hini.

His Honor said, there was obviously a real difficulty to know what was meant by dismantling, according to the regulations, when dealing with a small set°such as the one that figured in the case. The Department should give a satisfactory working definition of the term "dismantling," and set out clearly what it insisted should be done, and then it would be reasonable to prosecute people if they did not dismantle according to the standard required. In the present case he was satisfied after hearing the evidence that the owner had a genuine intention of cutting off his receiving station. The method he had employed to dismantle the set was reasonable; he had not done what he did merely to a\oid payment of fees. The appeal was allowed without costs.