ALTERED DATE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 33, 9 February 1939, Page 13

ALTERED DATE.

FITNESS WARRANT.

CHARGES ADMITTED.

QUESTION IN COURT.

DOCUMENT NOT REQUIRED.

"fun (i man be charged with forging uii'l uttering a document he is not required to li.ive?" asked counsel in the Police ( "Hit this morning. Appeal-in-* ~n summons. ~n two charge-, r'raneis Robert Wlivtock was clungr-d M\nl on October 17'. I!•:!*, he tnmle ii fill"! , document by altering the chile on 11 warrant of fitness and uttering the -ame to 11 tnillic inspector with inienl that it. should be acted upon as genuine. Mr. ('. A. Hamcr appeared for defendiint. llcfi.re the ease was proceeded with. Mr. Hainer submitted Uiat the charge* wenmil of .ill proportion and that defendant .lioiild be proceeded with under the ■flattie Kegulations, KCiti. on a charge of Mipplying I'aUe information. One"dav IIIM October, he said, the defendant left liU motor truck in Newmarket, and on returning found a. slicker on it, left by a trallic ollicer, requiring him to call at the Newmarket Mnrruigh Council office iiii.l produce his I'nonse and a warrant of fitness. On entering the office defendant found that the warrant of fitness was tinted .March. This he altered to read the month of .May, by altering the liyiire. "ii" to read ".">." Counsel's Submission. ''My client \* charged iudictnbly with forging something h e was not required to have," snid .Mr. Hamer, "for the truck was licensed as a heavy traffic vcliicle ttn<l it was not necessary to have a warrant of fitness. If the present clmrgps are proceeded with he will have to fjo to the Supreme Court for sentence. 1 wiilnnit he should Ite "dealt with on the summary bylaw charge." It was pointed out by Rub-Inspector Fox that the crime of forgerv was committed before any breach of the regulations, and so far as the police were concerned they could not look lightly upon it. Mr. Fox «aid he had been instructed by his superior officer to oppose the substitution of any other charge Whether the document was required or not made no difference. Tin- magistrate. Mr. C. I!. Orr Walker, thought, the question was one which should lie decided by a judge in %he Supreme Court. "I question whether I could deal with it as a charge of supplying false information," he. said. The hearing of the two charges was then proceeded with. Ernest John McOerty, traffic inupector for the Newmarket Borough Council, said Whvtock, in response to a letter sent to him by witness, called at his office on October 17 and produced a warrant of fitness for the motor truck. Witness immediately noticed that, the figure "3" representing the month of March, 1938, had been altered to a "5." Asked who had altered the figure, defendant told witness he had no knowledge that the warrant had been altered. Defendant was prosecuted for operating the truck without a warrant of fitness. The case wae not defended and defendant was convicted and fined. Mr. Hamer: Why did you »sk defendant to produce a warrant of fitness when none was required, as the truck had been fully licensed?—l wae under the impression, given me by the traffle officer who reported on the truck, that there wae no license on the vehicle. So you leave it to, the driver to dieclose whether he has a van license or not?— Yes. Of course, if I'm on the street I would look myself to sec if the truck warn licensed. If there was a van license I would not ask for a warrant of fitness. Brother's Evidence. Jnmpp McDonald Whytock, a brother of the defendant, said lie operated a carrying business from C'levedon and employed his brother as a driver. The truck was operated under a heavy traffic license is«ue<l by the Maniikatl County Council, while a licence had also been issued by the Auckland City Council. Under these licences the truck wna inspected twice a year by council officers. The truck was last inspected about the end of April. The van license was carried on the headlamp lirncket, and had never been removed from the vehicle. Witness said he only discovered a month ago that a heavy traffic license disposed with the necessity of obtaining a warrant of fitness. In his ignorance ho had taken out a warrant of fitness. A statement made by defendant during an interview on Xovcmber 30 was produced by Constable L. E. 0. Wifann. In this defendant said he knew the wnrrant of fitness had expired, and he admitted altering the figure, making the warrant appear to have been inslied °n May 1 instead of March 1. He was »"iry he had done so, and regretted "is action.

Defendant pleaded guilty to both Pharges, ami was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

The magistrate allowed bail in delendantYt own recognisance.