PROSECUTIONS UNDER AUCTIONEERS ACT

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 220, 13 June 1936, Page 8

PROSECUTIONS UNDER AUCTIONEERS ACT

Law’s Meaning Questioned

A number of Wellington auctioneering firme, as well as various employees, were prosecuted iu the Magistrate's Court yesterday for breaches of the Auctioneers Act iu employing unlicensed salesmen. Evidence was given to show that it was a custom of long standing to allow young men to gain experience by selling at busy times, even when they bad not a licence. Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., who heard the cases, reserved his decision. The defendants were D. Bowie and Co., Ltd., Thompson Brothers Ltd., Laery and Co., Ltd., Townsend and Paul Ltd., Kenneth William Thompson, Frank Gooch, William 11. Guy, Athol Press and Thomas Stephen Townsend. The Hon. W. Perry appeared for Townsend and Paul Ltd. and for Thomas Stephen Townsend ; Mr. F. C. Spratt appeared for the other defendants.

Detective-Sergeant L. Revell, prosecuting, said that, following complaints, detectives had made inquiries and had found a number of unlicensed men selling. Detective W. R. Fell said that on May 12 he bad visited the firms, and at each had found unlicensed persons selling. Representatives of one firm explained that it was customary to use young men in this way to give them opportunities of obtaining experience and learning the trade of an auctioneer. Constable H. H. Hudson gave corroborative evidence.

"As far as I can see, these cases are on identical planes,” said Mr. Spratt. "These several firms are merely continuing a custom that has been going on. m Wellington as long as can be remembered. Our case is this: That none of these assistants was conducting an auction sale within the meaning of the act.” It was laid down that no person should carry on business as an auctioneer unless he was the holder of a licence, and that the holder of a licence was not empowered to conduct a sale unless he was the person specified on the licence to do so. A distinction was drawn between the person carrying on an auctioneer’s business and the person who did the actual selling. He submitted that the person who conducted the sale was he who had control of the actual selling by active and efficient supervision. Counsel pointed out that the licence fee was £4O. Similar submissions were made by Mr. "The question is one of considerable importance,” said the magistrate. "One feature strikes me particularly. If one firm employs, say, three licensed auctioneers and two young gentlemen in the position of apprentice auctioneers, it is quite certain that other firms will employ only one licensed auctioneer and four apprentices. That is human nature.”