Two Charges Against Car Dealer

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31208, 4 November 1966, Page 14

Two Charges Against Car Dealer

Decision was reserved by Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on charges against Five Star Motors, Ltd., of fraudulently converting to its own use £4OO received as agent for Johannus Hendricus Verhoeff in the sale of a car and rendering a false account by stating that the car had been sold for £lBOO when in fact it had been sold for £2200.

Mr J. G. Leggat, who appeared for the company, entered pleas of not guilty to both charges. Senior-Sergeant G. M. Cleary said that Verhoeff, who migrated to New Zealand last year, brought a 1965 Plymouth Belvedere from the Netherlands. The car was held in bond after Verhoeff arrived, and he was given permission to sell it privately on payment of substantial duty. He advertised it at £2300.

Ralph Roland Lavin, a salesman employed by the company, called on Verhoeff and told him that it would be easy to sell the car for £2300. Lavin was authorised to sell the car for that amount.

On several occasions Lavin told Verhoeff that he would have to come down in price, and Verhoeff agreed to £lBOO. On November 10, Lavin said he had an offer of £l7OO, and Verhoeff told him to return the car. Three-quarters of an hour later Lavin returned with a cheque for £lBOO, and Verhoeff signed an authority to sell at that price.

Evidence would show that the car was sold to John Peter Fluitsma and that the transaction came to £2200, said Senior-Sergeant Cleary. The sale consisted of a trade-in of a 1961 Chevrolet Impala for £lBOO and £4OO in cash. A

trade-in had to be regarded as money under the act. There was an authority to sell at £lBOO, but that had been induced by fraud, said Senior-Sergeant Cleary. In evidence, Verhoeff said he did not think that commission would be taken off the price he received, as Lavin had said he would make his profit out of the trade-in. The witness said that at the time he needed the money and spoke no English. To Mr Leggat, Verhoeff said that after finding a spare set of keys for the car he got in touch with Fluitsma. When Fluitsma told him that he had paid £2200 for the car he went to his solicitors. He was advised to get in touch with the police after Five Star Motors, Ltd., had failed to reply to a letter. Verhoeff agreed that he did not know of anyone who would buy the car for more than £lBOO on the day that he sold it, and he had signed an authority for it to be sold at £lBOO.

To Senior-Sergeant Cleary Verhoeff said that Lavin had the cheque made out when he came around. No-one had told

him that the car had been sold for £2200. John Peter Fluitsma said that Lavin offered him £lBOO for the Impala and he agreed to buy the Belverdere for £2200. He paid Five Star Motors, Ltd., £4OO. To Mr Leggat Fluitsma said that he owed £428 10s on the Impala to a finance company. The deal was for the extra money over the Impala which he would pay. The hirepurchase debt on the Impala was transferred to the Belvedere.

Ralph Roland Lavin, a company manager, said that he worked on the difference figure between the Impala and the Belvedere, and this was agreed at £4OO. The company’s price for the Belvedere was £lBOO. The problem of disposing of the Belvedere was that it was a six-cylinder manual, which was unpopular, and it was a left-hand drive and the recording instruments were in metric measurement. When Verhoeff was told the car had been sold for £lBOO he was quite happy, said the witness.

Mr Leggat, who called no evidence, submitted that there

was no evidence that the company had submitted an account of any kind. There was evidence from the principal prosecution witness that he had made a statutory declaration that he had purchased the car for £lBOO. He had handed over the Impala, which had an indebtedness of £428 12s, and £4OO in cash. The deal was that the unencumbered Impala would be traded in and £4OO would be paid for the Belvedere, and that was done.

This did not give rise to even a civil action, let alone a criminal prosecution. From whom did the defendant company steal the money? There was no objection to the price of £lBOO until seven months later. At the request of Lavin, Verhoeff had signed the declaration that he had sold the car for £lBOO in front of his solicitor.

Verhoeff might well have a resentment against bureaucracy because of the large amount of duty (£850) he had to pay on the car, but that did not justify him in seeking criminal proceeding against a large company, Mr Leggat said.