OUT ON TRIAL RUN

Evening Star, Issue 19549, 6 May 1927, Page 3

OUT ON TRIAL RUN

„ - USE OF TRADE NUMBER PLATES IMPORTANT MOTOR JUDGMENT An important judgment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, was given by Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the Police Court to-day. He held that a prospective buyer was not guilty of driving a motor car not registered in accordance with part 1 of the Act when making a, trial run in a motor car carrying trade demonstration number plates. The defendant was Frederick William ; Ff>rd, and at the hearing he was defended by Mr E. J. Anderson. “ The facts, I find admitted as proved, are that in November, 1925, a used Essex motor car, the subject. of the charge, was taken over by the New Zealand Motor and Engineering; Company, Ltd.,” stated the magistrate. “From that date till March 6, 1927, it was held by the company for sale. The company. docs not let motor cars’ out on hire or loan, but is engaged in tho sale of cars. On March 5, the car was shown to the defendant as a prospective purchaser. He was the owner of a car, and loft his own car in the company’s garage, and took the Essex car for the purpose of trial. His own car was in good running order. He took the car out of. the company’s garage on March 5, and on March .6 took it for a trial run. The petrol and oil wore supplied by the company, and the defendant paid nothing. The car was returned to~the cpmpany on the evening of March 6. On March 7 the defendant called and discussed purchase with tho company’s manager, hut terms could not be agreed on, and tho defendant did not purchase. “While defendant had possession of the car it had attached to'it a set of the company’s demonstration number plates. It is alleged by the prosecution that use of the car with such number plates is contrary to tho provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924. Section 18 of the said Act allows a dealer to use a motor vehicle even if not registered, and no annual license fee has been paid if—(a) the vehicle is held only for the purpose of sale, and (h) trade registered plate is attached while vehicle is in use. “ In the present case, I find that both these requirements have been complied with. Tho only difficulty I have is in deciding whether the driving by the defendant constituted a use by the dealer* —the Now Zealand Motor and Engineering Company, Ltd. After_ careful consideration I am of the opinion that the car, being driven by the defendant bn a trial for sale and for no other purpose, was being used for the benefit of tho dealer. To hold that to be constituted a use by tho dealer the car must be actually driven by the dealer or his employee would, I think, be ari unreasonable limitation of use. It is obvious that where a car with demonstration plates is being driven by some person other than the dealer, the circumstances call for careful and searching examination. “The onus in every such case is on tho driver and also the dealer to disprove, a breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and so show that the user comes within the indulgence granted by section 18. Tho information is dismissed.”