PETROL CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 141, 9 March 1940, Page 7

PETROL CONTROL

Resellers Fined Three Wellington petrol resellers were charged before Mr. Stilwell, S.M.. iu the Alagistratos' Court, Wellington, "itli breaches of the Oil Fuel Regulations last year In two eases lines were inflicted and iu the other case the magistrate reserved his decision so that be could, consider a point of law that was raised. Fines totalling £l4 were inflicted oil Matthew Ellis, who was charged win selling oil fuel without a permit or licence to do so, nitiking u false statement and making an omission in a communication with the oil fuel controller. Senior-Sergeant G. J. Paine, who conducted the prosecution, said that defendant. who was the proprietor of a petrol station at Kelburn. had supplied petrol in quantities in excess ot the amounts for which the purchaser had a licence. M lieu an inspector visited the station he toiind a deficiency of 97 gallons. Colin William Campbell, sub-district oil fuel controller, said that a licensee was found by an inspector who visited the station in November to have overdrawn 18 gallons. When the records were called in by tnc Government it was found that alterations and erasures bad been made iu them. Infra-red photographs of the records were produced to show the alterations.

On behalf of defendant, Mr. J. D. Willis said that all service station proprietors were not used to accountancy, which the keeping of the records required bv the Government involved. He himself would not like to be responsible for their task when the restrictions were introduced. Defendant had two stations and could not supervise each closely, and he could not have had any intention to deceive because he ended November 43 gallons to the good. John I'leriot Simons was fined amounts totalling £l4 in respect of eight charges of selling petrol without, permits or licences. Senior-Sergeant Paine said defendant was the proprietor of a service station at Brooklyn where 11 licensees had overdrawn, one in two consecutive mouths. There had been no attempt to interfere with tlie books. Mr. W. Heine, on behalf of defendant, explained that iu six cases tlie offences were pure oversight and the quantities were small, such as six gallons. The other two cases consisted in the selling of petrol to a doctor who urgently needed it when he had used the quantity for which he had been given a licence. Later the doctor had his licence increased. The fines were £l. iu two eases of petrol supplied to the doctor and £2 iu the other cases.

Progress Motors Ltd. were charged with selling fuel without a permit or licence, making an omission in a communication to the oil fuel controller (two counts) and making a false statement to the oil fuel controller (live counts).

After evidence had been called by both sides Mr. 1. McArthur submitted for defendant that there was serious objection to such a charge being brought against a limited company. 11. was a quasi ’criminal charge, including Ihe words “with intent to deceive,” and he was prepared to argue that a company could not have intention to deceive. The offences were innocent omissions made in rush periods at u station that employed five attendants.

The magistrate dismissed three casen in which he found that no intent to deceive had boon proved and reserved bin decision in the others.