MOTOR CAR EXCHANGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 185, 6 August 1932, Page 11

MOTOR CAR EXCHANGE.

ALLEGATION OF THEFT. CHARGE AGAINST CLERK. ACCUSED ACQUITTED. The purchase of a motor van and its subsequent exchange for a motor car were related before Mr. Justice Smith at the Supreme Court yesterday, when Maurice Hendry Smith, clerk, was charged with the theft of a motor car, valued at £87 12/4, the property of Campbell Motors, Limited. He was also charged with obtaining the motor ear by falsely representing that he was the owner of the motor van. Evidence was given by William A. Shirley, secretary of Campbell Motors, Limited, that in August of last year accused entered into an agreement to purchase a motor van from witness' firm for £87. He paid £5 deposit, and after paying certain instalments he defaulted. When lie was then asked where the van was he said he had lent it to a friend. Subsequently inquiries were made and it was learned that the van had been disposed of by accused to a farmer at Hobsonville. When witness told accused ,'ie had no right to dispose of the van, because the company held the title of ownership, accused said that he had not passed any title over. George Kennedy, farmer, of Hobsonville, said in September of last year he exchanged a motor for a van, which he believed belonged to accused. The latter drew up an agreement, which they signed, and by which in addition to the exchange of vehicles, witness was to pay accused £12 10/. Accused did not disclose that the van was not his own unencumbered property. No evidence was called for the defence. Counsel for accused submitted there was no fraudulent intent on the part of the accused. A month after he had actually made the exchange of the van for the motor car he had paid Campbell Motors £10 in connection with the purchase of the van. Then accused got into financial difficulties and was made a bankrupt. I His Honor said there was a clear j breach by the accused of the conditions of the hire-purchase agreement. There was no question that Campbell Motors had grounds for a civil action at the time, but whether the action of the accused was criminal was a question for' the jury. His Honor said he agreed with the point made by counsel that the accused could not givo a certificate of title over the van, and therefore he could not steal it. He directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on the charge of theft on the second count, that of falsely representing that he was the owner of the van. Tihe question for the jury was whether the conduct of the accused conveyed to the mind of Kennedy that he was the absolute owner of the van. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both charges.