ISSUE OF MOTOR LICENSE

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 31, 31 October 1929, Page 11

ISSUE OF MOTOR LICENSE

LEADS TO FORGERY CHARGE TWO MEN ON TRIAL Lancelot Louis John Eilers and Clifford James Thomas were charged in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon with forcing, and attempting to utter, a motor driver’s license. The Chief Justice (Hon. M. Myers) was on the Bench. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted, and Mr. H. H. Cornish and Mr. H. J. V. James represented Eilers and Thomas respectively. “This case is an exceedingly simple one and of its class not a serious one,” said Mr. Macassey, in opening the case for the Crown. Continuing, he said that at about 7.30 p.m. on Saturday, Sentember 7 last, a constable who was on duty in Courtenay Place stopped Thomafi for driving his car with insufficient lighting. He asked Thomas for his driver’s license. Thomas replied that he had left it at home in the pocket of another coat, but he would bring it to the Taranaki Street Police Station next morning—Sunday. He did not do so, however, but came along to the station on the Monday and produced a license to another constable. The license itself was dated September 7 and on the back there was a date stamp reading , September 9. Subsequently Thomas admitted that he had gone to the city traffic office and got Eilers, who was a clerk there, to give him a license on the Monday (September 9) ante-dated to September 7. When Eilers was interviewed he first said that Thomas had called for a license at about 11 o’clock on the Saturday, but the cash register had then been set for Monday’s date. Later, however, Eilers admitted his part in the transaction. Thp Chief Traffic Inspector, Louis Drake, said that Eilers had been employed as a clerk in the City Traffic Office for several years. Thomas had had a license for the two previous years, but the 1928-29 license had expired on May 31- ' • XT Mr. H. H. Cornish, to witness: You know Eilers is a man with a wife and four children. His Honour: That is not a proper question, Mr. Cornish; it is a most improper one. It may be a matter for consideration in certain circumstances and at a certain time, but not at this juncThe Court adjourned till 11.45 o’clock this morning, when the case will be continued.