A “SERIOUS” OFFENCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 October 1928, Page 2

A “SERIOUS” OFFENCE

DEMONSTRATION No. PLATES

What was sarcastically referred to by counsel for the defendants as a “serious” offence, occupied the attention of Mr. W. Meldrum, S.M. at the Greymouth Court to-day. The case was that commenced yesterday, and adjourned for further evidence, in which Messrs Adams, Ltd., of Christchurch, were charged that, on August 24, at Greymouth, they did cause to be affixed to a motor vehicle a number other than the appropriate assigned number under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, Section 7 (2), and which was ■likely to be mistaken for the assigned number. Mr. J. W. Hannan appeared for defendants, and pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant C. E. Roach prosecuted.

The evidence given by the police yesterday was to the effect that defendants sold a second-hand car to Walter Grey Scott, of Greymouth. The car had demonstration number plates attached, and, until the proper plates could be secured, defendants allowed Scott to use the car with the demonstration numbers still affixed, in order to avoid causing him inconvenience in his business. A conviction and fine of 5/-, with 10/- costs, was recorded against ,Grey Scott yesterday, on a charge of driving the same car without proper number plates. Mr. Hannan contended that no offence had been committed by Adams, Ltd. The number plates were affixed to the car before it was sold to Scott, and, under the provisions of the Act, a car kept for sale by a dealei’ was entitled to bear demonstration plates. On the day the car was sold, application was made to the Post Office at Greymouth for the proper number plates, but delay was caused owing to the fact that the previous registration papers were missing. The plates were applied for on August 13, but were not received until August 24. At the time the plates were affixed by Adams, Ltd., the car was being used for demonstration purposes. At that stage, the hearing was adjourned until to-day, for the evidence of Charles Chamberlain, the Greymouth agent for defendants. Chamberlain stated that Scott took possession of the car early in August. Priok to that, witness was demonstrating the car, and it had demonstration number plates on it. The demonstration plates were affixed some months previously. The usual practice when a car was sold was to apply to the Post Office for registration, and he did so in this case, but there was a delay of about a fortnight before the number plates arrived. When the car was handed over to Scott, the demonstration number plates were still on it, and went lent to him until he could secure his own. Everything possible was done to get the proper plates for Scott. The Senior-Sergeant: Did you affix the demonstration number plates?— Yes.

How long did you have the car prior to selling it? —Since some time in February. You knew that as soon as you sold the car, the registration of the new owner would have to be effected before he could lawfully use the car? —Yes. Why did you not take precautions to see that the previous registration papers were available? —We handed them to the Post Office. Why did they not effect the registration, if they had the papers?—l think they sent the papers to Christchurch. I had to wait nearly three weeks. You had these numbers affixed to the car, and you sold the car. You knew that Scott could not .lawfully use your demonstration plates?—l received his money to get new plates, but could not get them at once. The demonstration plates were left on in the meantime, so as not to inconvenience Scott. You took the risk? —Yes. Mr. Hannan pointed out that the charge was one of affixing improper number plates to a .car, but all defendants did was to hand over the car, with the plates still on it. The only offence was that of using the car without proper plates, and Scott had already been convicted for that. The defendants simply did their best to help Scott. The S.M. remarked that, when the demonstration numbers were affixed to the car in February, the defendants were perfectly correct in doing so. The rlates had been rightly on the car until August, when it was sold. Defendants did all they could to obtain the proper plates. When the demonstration plates were affixed, that was quite lawful. Defendants had simply left them on after selling the car. The Senior-Sergeant: Then the only

thing is to charge defendants with counselling Scott to commit an offence. The S.M.: That they were an accessory with Scott in using the wrongplates?—Exactly. They were a party to that offence, and their duty was to have taken the demonstration plates off.

Mr. Hannan: Then I suggest that you also charge the Post Office with being an accessory to the offence ! The Senior-Sergeant: Oh, well, we have to draw the line somewhere, you know.

After consulting the Act, the S.M. said it seemed to him that the charge should have been laid under Sub-sec-

tion 1, which included the words, “or who permits anyone to use” wrong

numbers. Defendants were now charged with “causing to be affixed a .number other than the appropriate number.” The defendants caused the

numbers to be affixed in February, and were perfectly justified in doing so, as the car was then being used for

demonstration pui - poses. No doubt tbe defendants should have taken the numbers off when they sold the car, but they did not affix the improper numbers when they sold the car. The Senior-Sergeant: They caused them to be still affixed after the car was sold.

The S.M.: You are putting words into the Act, are you not? It was a new offence altogether to leave the demonstration plates .on. The Senior-Sergeant: It is all under one section.

The S.M.: But it is an absolutely ew offence. Defendants are charged

with unlawfully affixing number plates but they did not do that. The plates were lawfully affixed in February. The Senior-Sergeant: It is not a very great offence, in any case, but we must draw the line. I suggest that we

should lay a fresh information under Sub-section 1, if all the parties are agreeable. It would avoid having to serve a fresh summons later on. My superior officer will no doubt order a fresh information to be laid. Mr. Hannan: I am not agreeable, sir. They want two fines for this “serious” offence, one against Scott and one against Adams, Ltd. The S.M. said he could not convict

defendants on the information as laid, and he therefore dismissed the case. Whether, in the opinion of the “superior officer”, the offence is serious enough to justify the laying of a fresh information, the serving of another summons, and a repetition of the hearing, remains to be seen.