BREACHES OF REGULATIONS

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23586, 13 March 1942, Page 8

BREACHES OF REGULATIONS

Garage Proprietor Fined £SO PETROL SOLD WITHOUT AUTHORITY

Two charges brought under the Oil Fuel Emergency Regulations, 1939, were heard against a garage proprietor, Alexander John Archibald, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. After the hearing of evidence, the Magistrate fMr E; C. Levvey, S.M.) said the Court could not but take a serious view of the breaches. Accused on the first charge- -selling on or about January 15.220 gallons of petrol, the sales not authorised by the Oil Fuel Emergency Regulations—was lined £SO and ordered to pay costs; and on the second charge—that he refused to furnish to the Oil Fuel Controller information regarding the distribution of oil fuel—he was fined 20s and ordered to pay costs. Senior-Sergeant J. Bickerdikc prosecuted, and Mr A. F, Wright appeared for the defence. Archibald pleaded not guilty to each charge. The accused, who had boon convicted on January 15 for storing 220 gallons of petrol not in* accordance with the dangerous goods regulations, had been told by an official acting for the OJ Fuel Controller after the hearing of the chqvge that the petrol in question which Archibald said had been stored only to oblige customers who had already bought and paid for it would nave to he rr-inrncd io stock and accounted for as stock. It could be Used for no other purpose, Senior-Sergeant Riekordike said. When a check was made it was found that the petrol was not in the tanks, and Archibald. declined to say where lie had disposed of it.

Even if the 220 gallons of petrol was being held for customers, none of it should have been drawn except on licences for that month, Senior-Ser-geant Bickerdike said. Evidence of visits to Archibald's garage and the check-up on the slocks, was given by William Henry Thomas, an inspector with the delegated authority of thp Oil Enel Controller. The evidence showed that the oil fuel branch was incensed by the omission by the Magistrate in the first case to make an order for confiscation, Mr Wright said. What had happened was that an attempt had been made, and was at present being made, to override the decision of the Court. “The case has descended from a prosecution to a persecution," he said. Apparently an effort was now made to convict Archibald twice for the same offence, Mr Wright continued. “And what could the poor man do when he knew of the claims for damages which would be brought against him by his clients it he didn’t have lor them the petrol which they had bought and paid lor?” Mr Wright asked.

Summing up, the Magistrate said the evidence of the prosecution claimed to show that the defendant having possessed 220 gallons of petrol, had committed a breach of the regulations by failing to carry out the instructions and conditions relating to oil fuel control, and had disposed of the petrol; and he had on lawful demand failed to supply information about its disposal. The defence had refuted a charge of breach of the regulations, because. they said, no sale had been made, and there had not been a failure to supply information, the Magistrate continued. Counsel for the defence had emphasised the great need on the part of the Court to interpret with care and with justice such regulations, otherwise despotism, irking and harassing to a high degree, would arise. In this case, the Magistrate said, there had been nothing lo substantiate the suggestion of an attempt to persecute or harass the accused. The otlicer of the oil fuel branch had directed in accordance with his undoubted powers what was to be done with the petrol in question, but when he checked up he found that the exact amount of the petrol had gone—and the onus was on the accused, who was in sole charge, to show where and why it had gone. “He must be responsible to the regulations; ho has not done so. so he must be convicted.” the Magistrate concluded. Dealing with the second charge, the Magistrate said the accused had acted on advice and had not deliberately withheld information. A technical conviction only would be entered.

Imitation Crystallised Cherries.— Price Order No. 7 fixing prices for imitation crystallised cherries was gazetted last night. The prices charged by the manufacturer to the wholesaler are fixed at Is 3d a lb, from the wholesaler to retailer at Is 6d plus sales tax, and from the retailer to the public at 2s 2d. —P.A.