NOT A PURCHASE

Evening Star, Issue 21819, 7 September 1934, Page 1

NOT A PURCHASE

ARGUMENT IN SOVEREIGN-DEALING TRANSACTION APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S DECISION [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 6. The Supreme Court was engaged today healing two appeals from decisions given by Mr E. Page. S.M. The parties were Henry Edwin Campin, informant, and Harold Harding Morns Ltd., defendant. It was alleged that, on December 6, 1933, in Wellington, the defendant committed an offence against a Board of Trade regulation by unlawfully carrying on the husines of a gold coin dealer, not being the holder of a license to carry on such business. The magistrate .convicted the .defendant!,, and fined him £SO and costs. Against that decision the defendant lodged an appeal. In the statement of the case the magistrate said that the evidence showed that on November 9, 1933, a police officer in plain clothes went to the premises of the defendant, and asked the defendant Morris if ho bought sovereigns. Morris replied: “Wo are not supposed to, you know.” The constable put one sovereign on tho table, and the defendant gave him 30s for it. The police officer made several subsequent calls on the defendant, and disposed of gold coins, Mr Levi said the defendant appealed on the grounds—(l) That there was no such business as a gold coin dealer as defined by the,regulations; and (2) that the regulations were ultra vires. He contended that sovereigns were still currency, and still legal',tender in this country. Every sovereign was worth at least 255, and if a person gave 30s for a sovereign that did not make it a purchase of the’ sovereign .Mr Justice Ostler: Since the war since we have been off the gold standard the price of gold has been steadily rising.. It is now over £7 an ounce. Sovereigns have been withdrawn from circulation in New Zealand • for years; As everyone knows the intrinsic value of a sovereign is over 30s at the present moment, and there has been a number of people, . goldsmiths and others, who nave been buying sovereigns to melt down and make a profit on it. Am Ito ignore all that and shut my eyes? .Mr Levi: I say it is not a trade. If a person changes notes for a/sovereign that is, not buying a sovereign. . . His Honour: I should say that an ordinary person would, say it was. Mr Evans-Scott contended that in this case the defendant was a gold com dealer, and had committed a breach of the regulations. Mr Levi .said the use of. a/sovereign as; currency could not make it a trade or a business within the meaning of the Board of Trade Act. The melting down of coins was a very, different thing. , ,■' His Honour; That always has . been illegal. ' . ’ Mr Levi; Yes, that is so. Manufacturers are ilTa very difficult position! His Honour: They might buy secondhand jewellery. • After hearing further argument the court reserved judgment. The other appeal was: from the conviction of Harold Harding Morris Ltd. for carrying on business .as a secondhand dealer without a license, the question being whether the purchase of sec-ond-hand. jewellery for. the purpose of making it into gold ingots for export made the . purchaser, ’ a second-hand dealer within the Second-hand Dealers Act. 1908. Judgment was reserved.