Car Dealer Convicted Of Failure To Account

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27400, 13 July 1954, Page 14

Car Dealer Convicted Of Failure To Account

“I accept the evidence of Mrs Arnold. I think there has been a fraudulent omission in not paying her the £220. A conviction will be entered,” said Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Thomas Keith Sherlock, aged 23, a car dealer (Mr H. S. Thomas), appeared on a charge that between February 12 and February 22, having received £125 in money and a cheque for £l6O on terms requiring him to pay this sum to Mary Emma Arnold, he omitted to pay the amount, thereby committing theft. Sherlock pleaded not guilty. Detective-Sergeant G. W. Alty appeared for the police.

Mrs Arnold said the accused -was formerly the proprietor of New Brighton Car Sales. About the middle of January he inspected a car she owned and said he would sell it for her for £220. She told him he could have as commission anything he obtained over and above this price. She gave him the car and the registration papers. After he had had the car for some time she asked him to see her. He said he could still get £220 for the car. Later she sent a message to him that she wanted the car as she had a buyer for it. He said it was too late, he had sold the car for £l5O. Accused gave her a cheque for £ 150, post-dated a month, but when she paid the cheque into the Post Office Savings Bank it was returned marked “refer to drawer,” said witness. She again saw accused and he said to proffer the cheque again. She did so and this time it was returned marked “instructions not to pay.” Again she

saw accused and he said he would pay her £lO a month until the debt was paid off. He did not do so. She put the matter in the hands of the police and after accused had been arrested she learned that he had obtained £285 for the car. She had expected to get £220 for the car. She had got nothing. Evidence of having paid £125 as a down payment on the car, was given by Edmund Henry Murray. James McCallum Tocker, secretary of a finance company, gave evidence that the company sent a cheque to accused for £l6O, being the balance of the money for the car.

Detective P. R. Callanan gave evidence of an interview he had had with accused. Accused had told him that after having had the car for six weeks he went back and told Mrs Arnold he could not sell it and she told him he could lower the price to £l5O. Sherlock in evidence said the statement was correct. Mrs Arnold said she was agreeable to the car being sold for £l5O because she needed the money urgently. He would have been able to pay her the money but in March another deal for the sale of a car fell through and he had to fall back on the money he had received for Mrs Arnold’s car. Mr Thomas submitted there was no evidence that Sherlock intended to deprive Mrs Arnold of the £l5O permanently. If the Court considered the payment should be £220, seeing that he had accounted for £l5O, he could only be convicted of failing to account for the balance, £7O. Sherlock was remanded to July 19 for- sentence.