A MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

Evening Star, Issue 21662, 6 March 1934, Page 10

A MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It was with amazement that I read Mr Bundle’s decision in the report in your columns of the .police proceedings against a local solicitor for making a false- claim under the Motor Spirits Taxation Act. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, which in effect meant that had the matter not been brought to light by some wide-awake official the defendant, would have received money to which he was not entitled under" the Act. It would bo interesting to sec what treatment this magistrate would have meted out to some poor unfortunate who under dire necessity had made out a similar false declaration —providing, of course, that such offender was not a solicitor. The most amazing feature of the case was tho manner in which the evidence was treated. Here is a case where a man pleads guilty to a charge of attempting to obtain money from the Government under a false declaration —there being no loophole of escape—yet the magistrate says that “ it is not a case where the court should enter a conviction, owing to the far-reaching consequences.” These are his own words. Just here it is pertinent to inquire what are these far-reaching consequences, and it is up to Mr Bundle to enlighten the public. Was it because Duncan was one of the profession, and that being a solicitor convicted of making a false declaration he was liable to be struck off the roll? The suggestion by the bench that had the defendant made an explanation to tho Postal Department all would have been well is no more convincing than his decision in dismissing the case. If an explanation as suggested would have satisfied the authorities, why was a police prosecution the outcome of defendant’s action?—l am, etc., Petrol. [lt is fair to include the magistrate’s statement that tho offence was one of carelessness. The postal authorities sent several messages to Duncan asking him to call and give an explanation before recourse was had to the police. It was explained that he did not call because he overlooked the matter. The police agreed with the magistrate that it was clear on the face of the declaration that a mistake had been made, the amount purchased being erroneously claimed for, not the amount used;—Ed. E.S.]