RATIONING CHARGES

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 October 1945, Page 2

RATIONING CHARGES

SHIP’S PROVIDORE’S GOODS ABSENCE OF PERMITS WELLINGTON, October 3. Stanley John Newland, ships’s provido'ro, was charged before *Mr Maunsell, S.M., with 17 breaches of rationing .regulations, and four of Price Order Regulations. He pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The first charge was that in November, 1944, he failed to keep a proper record of all butter transactions, and to furnish four weekly returns of receipts and deliveries of butter. This charge was dismissed, the Magistrate remarking that every effort had been made to advise him to comply with the regulations, ’ but, before he could be convicted, the prosecution must prove a special direction. and not one by implication. The defendant was .then charged with having in May, 1945, obtained 12 pairs of sheets and 24 pillow cases from Charles S. Clark and Company, Limited, in circumstances in which they were prohibited from supplying the goods to him; and with acquiring 31*- pairs of sheets and 24 pillow cases from the same firm under similar conditions. Inspector Bindon said he found the goods in Newland’s office when on a visit on other- business. Newland admitted that he had not surrendered a permit for the goods, stating that he had just tendered his card, and no questions had been raised. lhe Rationing Control Office had no record of any permit being issued to either Clark or Newland for these goods. The Magistrate said the case was clear. The question of penalty would be held over. Newland was then charged that in April, 1945, he acquired 2101bs. of tea from George H. Scales , Pacific Ltd., in circumstances in which they were prohibited from supplying the goods. Inspector Bindon said he found in Newland’s office an account charging the ship Arcadia with various items, including 2101bs of tea, and later he found a similar account against Newland. Both parties admitted not paying a permit. Scales Pacific Ltd. subsequently was prosecuted and fined H. F. O’Leary called Newland and before examining him in regard to the charge, asked what he knew of a telephone call referrred to by the Magistrate at the opening of the hearing. “I have no idea whatsoever about it,” Newland replied. “As to having been pally with Cabinet Ministers, well I do a bit of racing and several of them go along. I myself have had several anonymous telephone calls, particularly at nights, and I want to dissociate myself entirely from this Mr Maunsell: “I unreservedly accept your statement. I can say _no more than that it was an Irish voice. I don’t know what county he comes from; but it is not here.” Newland was examined at some length. He was convicted on the charge relating to tea, and subse quently on a charge that, in May, 1945, be supplied two bodies of beet to T H. Jarvis, otherwise than m accordance with rationing regulations. In both of these .cases the penalty was held over. CONVICTIONS AND DISMISSALS

Of the 17 charges against Newland three were dismissed and two were adjourned. Convictions were entered on the remaining charges. Newland pleaded not guilty to all the rationing charges. He entered the same plea to' four informations laid by the Price Tribunal. The Magistrate convicted him on two price control charges and imposed lines of £2 and £4. He held one over for consideration. He dismissed the fourth. The question of what penalties would be imposed lor the convictions on the rationing breaches was held over by the Magistrate till the resumption of the hearing on Friday afternoon. Most of the rationing charges were dealt with in groups, one or two being heard separately. The charge that on November 16, 1944 Newland failed to keep a proper record of all butter transactions, and to furnish four weekly returns of receipts and deliveries of butter, was dismissed. He was convicted on two charges concerning the alleged illicit purchase of 431 pairs of sheets and two dozen pillow cases from Charles S. Clark and Co. Ltd. The Rationing Inspector said Newland admitted acquiring the linen without a permit but the goods were urgently needed for a hospital ship, which was expected to arrive at Wellington in the near future. He had thought his actions justified. Newland was convicted on the charge of acquiring on April .?, 219 lbs. of tea from George H. Scales, Pacific Ltd. When called by Mr. O’Leary, Newland related how his business had greatly increased during the war, as not only British ships, had to be provisioned, but also many Liberty ships. He had received little help from the Rationing Committee, as most of them had been playing golf during the week-ends. For a long period he and his staff had worked seven days a week in order to provide adequate provisions for the ships. A conviction against accused was entered by the magistrate after hear - ing a charge involving the unlawful supply of two bodies of beef to a butcher, Thomas Jarvis, on May 7. The hearing then followed of four charges involving the supply without a permit of 90 dozen eggs by Newland to two ships and two civilian consumers. He was convicted on each charge. He said he had been under the impression that eggs were not a rationed commodity, and that he had been quite at liberty to supply eggs to the men of the Merchant Navy. On three charges of supplying minor quantities of tea, butter and sugar to G. Humprey without a permit, Newland was convicted. Mr. O’Leary, replying m two charges against his client of supplying to consumers without a permit 2194 lbs. of sugar and 373 lbs. of tea between October 1945, and February, 1945, said both quantities had been included in provisions which the accused had supplied to the Shell Oil Company’s ship, Capsa. This ship was manned by a Chinese crew, who purchased their foodstuffs separately from the officers of the ship. The Rationing Office knew the accused had supplied certain quantities of tea and sugar to the officers of the Capsa. but they had failed to find out to whom the accused had supplied the amounts stipulated in the charges. As Newland had a permit to supply rationed goods to the ship he had not committed an offence by supplying the provisions of the Chinese crew. Mr. Maunsell said he accepted Mr. O’Leary’s 'explanation, and he dismissed both charges. In support of' four charges preferred *by the Price Tribunal it was stated that Newland overcharged the masters of two overseas ships £267 12/9.