POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19795, 20 February 1928, Page 8

POLICE COURT

(Continued from page 6)

Francis Hewitt (Mr .Hanlon) was proceeded against on a coinlapinl: for separation and maintenance.—Complainant (Air .Hay) gaco evidence that she and her husband were already separate dunder an agreement, hut the defendant had not kept up his payments. She had gone to live in \Vellington because her husband was frequently about the bouse and annoyed her,—Cross-examined, witness said she got £553 as the proceeds of the sale of a house. Defendant had £6OO in the bank, and was at present out of work.—His Worship made an order for separation, leaving’the maintenance at 35s a week. Costs (£2 2s) were allowed. DANGEROUS DRIVING.

Leslie Lewis, charged with driving a car in a manner dangerous to the public. was lined 20s, with costs (10s), the polic eevidenco being that defendant drove round the corner ol I'orbnry road at twenty, miles an hour. WAS IT AN OFFENCE?

Cossens and Rlack (Air J. B. Callan) pleaded not guilty to a charge of permitting an unregistered van to be used. Andrew Hewitt was also charged with having used the car. Sub-inspector Fahey said that the defendant Hewitt was found delivering bread from a motor van bearing a demonstration number, and had stated that his employer’s van was being repaired by Cossens and Black, who had lent the other van to temporarily replace. it. rAf. Black’s explanation had been that as ho was paying a higher rate of fees for demonstration cars than the scheduled rates lie was entitled to loan the vehicle. Air Callan said that the case as put by tho sub-inspector would be admitted. It was entirely a matter of whether an offence had been committed under the Act. The police contended that there had been, and the defence said tha tthcre had not been. Counsel went on to _ quote auobtrities, pointing out that in consideration of being granted a wider use of demonstration cars the fee had been raised from 10s to £2; thus the Govenment received as much from dealers in this way as from tho private owner in the ordinary way. Counsel contended that the act of lending, a valued client a car for a short period was one most intimately “ connected with the business” of defendants, it was something that was habitually done by dealers. James Black, director of Cossens and Black, Ltd., said that Tanner (the employer of Hewitt) had been of great service to witness’s firm. The practice of lending cars in these circumstances was a rjnlar one and quite an essential one. Cross-examined: It was not a common practice to lend out cars to which “D” numbers wore attached. Under the amended Act witness considered the firm was quite within its rights to do what it had done. Evidence was also given by Graham William Alassingham, local manager of Ford Alotors (Dunedin), Ltd., His AVorship said that the point raised was something of importance to motoring firms, and he would reserve his decision. The case against Hewitt could stand down in the meantime.