THEFT CHARGE DISMISSED

Evening Star, Issue 21571, 17 November 1933, Page 11

THEFT CHARGE DISMISSED

"AN AMBIGUOUS TELEGRAM" BONA FIDE BELIEF CAR WAS ABANDONED At the Police Court this morning John Stewart Dick pleaded not guilty to the theft of a protor car, valued at £SO, the property of Leslie James Maule. Mr C. A. Hamer appeared for the accused, and Chief-detective Young prosecuted. Chief-detective Young said that complainant was the manager of National Publications Ltd., Wellington, and he was the largest shareholder. He would give evidence that he employed the accused in August last as a salesman. He was engaged to sell a publication known as the ‘ New Zealand Licensee,’ to hotelkeepers, brewers, etc., and was to receive 33 1-3 per cent commission and to be provided with a car, to be landed at Lyttelton. The complainant advanced the accused his fare to Lyttelton and advanced him a sum of money for his first week’s expenses. Dick'was to pay all travelling and running expenses of the car, to which the accused agreed. The car was an Essex coach, valued at £SO, and valued by complainant at that amount. The accused said he had had some trouble with the car, and hired a battery for it at Tiraaru. The car broke down subsequently at Cromwell, where it was repaired. The accused returned to Dunedin, where further repairs were made. The accused was instructed to return to Christchurch, and the complainant forwarded him £2 to carry on to Christchurch. Near Waikouaiti the car broke down, and he wired complainant, who replied: “ We’ve finished with you and the car.” Dick received the telegram and went to a garage in Dunedin, showed the telegram, and sold the car for £l2 10s. The complainant would say that in sending the telegram he had nob given authority for the sale of the car.

Evidence was given by the complainant; who said he was a solicitor and chairman of directors of National Publications Ltd. He said with reference to the telegram he had sent to the accused that the intention he meant to express was that he was “ sacking ” Dick, and did not mean to have anything more to do with the car. Unfortunately the wire had been very badly expressed. He had received no acknowledgment to the w T ire. Later he wired Dick that he had no authority to sell the car, must return the money, and also his subscription books. The books were returned, but no letter wms received.

To Mr Hamer; The complainant said that the capital of the company was £IOO, of which he held 99 per cent. His Worship; So it is your company. Complainant: Quite. The manager of the firm to whom the car was sold also gave evidence, and said that from the wire lie took it that the car had been abandoned. The accused* gave evidence as to the nature of his employment, and said that when ho took possession of the car as Lyttelton ho formed the opinion that it was in very bad order indeed. He did not consider the replacing of parts could bo included in running expenses. Witness detailed the trouble he had had with the ear, which culminated in the telegram ho had sent to Manic. The complainant sent the wire in reply: “ Wo’ro finished with you and with car.” Witness said his genuine belief was that the car had been abandoned. He told tlie court that his occupation was cither that of a navigating officer at sea or an aircraft pilot. The Magistrate reviewed the evidence, and said that that of the complainant disclosed a somewhat peculiar contract entered into by Maule with the accused. One would have expected, with a solicitor, some more definite contract than was in existence. He agreed with the complainant when the latter stated that the telegram itself was very careless and ambiguous. He thought the accused had satisfied the court that when he received tho wire and acted as he did in selling the car he bona fide believed that the owner had given up ownership of the car. The Magistrate said ho was unable to find on the evidence before him that the accused stole the car.

The charge was dismissed