Boat sales proprietor cleared of vessel theft charges

Press, 8 September 1982, Page 4

Boat sales proprietor cleared of vessel theft charges

The proprietor of a city boat sales firm, in the District Court yesterday, successfully defended .five charges of theft of boats and one of theft of an outboard motor which had been left at the premises to be sold .on behalf of their owners.

The defendant. Roderick Maurice Liddy, aged 30.. had denied charges of theft of five boats valued at $16,000. and an outboard motor worth $2OOO. between May 25 and June 26. Three of the charges included trailers along with the boats.

Judge Fogarty upheld submissions by defence’ counsel (Mr A. P.’ C. Tipping) that there was no case to answer to the charges. He said the evidence showed at all times the items were at the premises of the Magnum Marine Centre awaiting sale, and were only removed when a finance company stepped in and seized them.

The Judge dismissed all charges, and reserved the question of costs. Sergeant G. G. Cleland, outlining the police evidence, said the six theft charges related to dealings by the

defendant as owner-operator of the firm of Magnum Marine, which bought and sold boats, and also sold on account of owners. The company also had a hire-pur-chase arrangement, and bailment contract, with Marac Finance. Ltd.

Police alleged that the defendant pledged the boats owned by the six complainants as security, when he did not have ownership of them at the time.

The six complainants gave evidence of arranging for the defendant to sell boats, or in one case an outboard motor, which they owned. The vessels were to be sold on the owners' behalf, and they retained ownership until sale. The owners had made no arrangement with the defendant regarding finance agreements, according to evidence. Most of the owners said their boats had been possessed by Marac Finance. One complainant. Garth William Bardsley, a bank officer, of Ashburton, said that his boat, a cabin cruiser, which he had asked the defendant to sell on his behalf.

had been "seized" by the finance company but he managed to get it back, upon showing proof of ownership. Mr Bardsley said he knew nothing about a loan made by Marac Finance to the Magnum Marine Centre. Stephen Vaughan Brown, a dental technician, gave evidence of leaving his boat to be sold on his account. Crossexamined. he said he had got his boat back. He did not lose possession of it. The boat had remained at the defendant's yard throughout. Three other witnesses said their boats were held by the finance company. A fourth said an outboard motor which he had left with the defendant to sell on his behalf was held by the finance company. He said that as far as he was aware it had stayed in the boat yard until the finance company took possession of it. The credit manager of Marac Finance, Ltd, Stephen Charles Andrew Peoples, gave evidence of finance agreements between the company and Magnum Marine. He said that as a result of

bailment forms being submitted by' the defendant in respect of the six transactions. cheques were forwarded against the bailments to Magnum Marine. Mr Peoples said that had his company known at the time that the items were to be sold on behalf of rightful owners, and these had not been paid out. the company would not have accepted the bailments.

Sergeant Cleland, in final submissions, said the police contended that the defendant had no right or authority to pledge the boats, for which it was alleged he obtained security amounting to nearly $17,000 from the finance company. The defendant had submitted bailment acknowledgement forms as security when he knew the contract with the finance company required that he purchase the boats before he could obtain money. Mr Tipping submitted that there was no case to answer to the charges. There had been no conversion of the items, and no evidence of a pledge or deposit of the boats with the finance com-

pany. .He also referred to legal decisions in relation to personal and company distinction in the charges. There was no evidence that possession of the items was at any stage surrendered to the alleged "pledgee" - the finance company. Mr Tipping said. The Judge said that on the evidence he must uphold Mr Tipping’s submission that there had been no • parting with possession of the items, or intention to part with their possession. The items had been taken over by Marac Finance but that was not sufficient to create an offence by the defendant.

On five charges of false pretence the defendant elected trial by jury and was remanded on bail to September 14 for a date to be set for the taking of depositions. The charges allege that he falsely represented that he had purchased a boat, thereby causing Marac Finance to make a valuable security, a cheque, drawn on the Commercial Bank of Australia.

The amount involved in the charges totalled $30,650.