Car wrecker guilty

Press, 4 December 1981, Page 5

Car wrecker guilty

A jury in the District Court yesterday found a car wrecker guilty of a charge of false pretence on July 14. 1980. relating to a statement of repairs to a motor-vehicle. The defendant. Roydon Blair Granger, aged 29 (Mr E. Bedo) was fined $4OO by Judge Pain. He said the case was different from the usual case of false pretence as there was not a total loss to the complainant who had had the use of the car for a year and then sold it for $lOO less than he paid the defendant. However, the defendant had clearly over-stepped the dividing line between salesmanship and dishonesty. The defendant, aged 29. (Mr E. Bedo) had denied the charge of falsely representing to the purchaser. Aivars Berzins, that a statement amounting to $742 tor motor-vehicle repairs to a 1966 car was evidence that the repairs had been carried out. and thereby obtaining $1675 for it. The jury reached its verdict in 25 minutes. Mr B. M. Stanaway appeared for the Crown. At the conclusion of the Crown case the Judge upheld submissions bv Mr Bedo that

the defendant be discharged on a second charge on which he was on trial, of false pretence on September 17. 1980. by falsely representing to Stuart Brendon Whyte that a 1966 car with a mileage recorder reading of more than 100.000 miles was a 1967 model with a reading of about 90.000 miles, and thereby obtained $1450 for it. The Judge granted the discharge under section 347 of the Criminal Justice Act. upholding submissions that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charge in relation to an element of it concerning an inducement to purchase.

After evidence was heard in relation to the other charge Mr Stanaway submitted in his final address that the car had never been reconditioned. and that Mr Berzins had purchased it because of assurances by the defendant that it had' been recently reconditioned. Mr Bedo called no defence evidence but submitted that the Crown had not proved the case to the required standard. There was a very big question mark regarding whether the engine had been repaired and whether Mr Berzins was induced to buy the car because of the statement of repairs to it.