PURCHASE OF SOVEREIGNS

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 September 1934, Page 4

PURCHASE OF SOVEREIGNS

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, September 6. The Supreme Court was engaged, to-day, in hearing two appeals from decisions given by Mr. Page, S.M. The parties were Henry Edwin Campin, informant, and Harold Harding Morris Ltd., defendant. It was alleged that on December 6, 1933, at Wellington, the defendant committed an offence against the Board of Trade regulation by unlawfully carrying on the business of gold coin dealer, not being the holder of a license to carry on the business of a gold coin dealer. The Magistrate convicted defendant and fined him £5O, with costs. Against that decision defendant lodged an appeal. In a statement of the case, the Magistrate said the evidence showed that on November 9, 1933, a police officer in plain clothes went to the premises of defendant and asked the defendant, Morris, if he bought sovereigns. Morris replied: “We are not supposed to, you know.” The constable put one sovereign on the table, and defendant gave him 30/- for it. The police officer made several subsequent calls on defendant and disposed of gold coins. Mr. Levi said that defendant appealed on the ground (1) That there was no such business as 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 25/-, and if a person gave 30/- for a sovereign, that did not make it the purchase of a sovereign. Justice Ostler: Since the war, and since we have been off gold, the standard price of gold has been steadily rising. It is now over £7 an ounce. Sovereigns have been withdrawn from circulation in New Zealand foi’ years. As everyone knows, the intrinsic value of a sovereign is over 30/- at the present moment, and there have been a number of people, goldsmiths and others, who have been buying sovereigns to melt down and make a profit on it. Am I to 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 Honor: I should say that an ordinary person would say it was.

Mr. Evans Scott contended that in this case, defendant was a gold coin dealer, and committed a. breach of the regulations. Mr. Levi said the use of a sovereign as currency could not make it a. trade or business within the meaning of the Board of Trade Act. Melting down of coins was quite a different thing. His Honor: That has always been illegal. Mr. Levi: Yes, that is so. The manufacturers are in a very difficult position. His Honor: They might buy secondhand jewellery. After hearing further argument the Court reserved judgment. The other appeal was from conviction of Harold Harding Morris Ltd., for carrying on business as a secondhand dealer without a license, the question being whether the purchase of second-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.