Youths’ Conviction For Conversion Of Lorry Upheld

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 October 1948, Page 8

Youths’ Conviction For Conversion Of Lorry Upheld

[SPECIAL TO STAR]

HOKITIKA, This Day.

Though admitting that a civil servant driving his department’s car home for lunch would not be liable to be charged with the conversion of the vehicle, the Magistrate, Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., held in the court at Hokitika this morning, that the actions of two of the New Zealand Railways Road Services, who took a lorry when off-duty and drove it to Arahura, constituted an unlawful act. Accordingly, he upheld a conviction entered on September 13 by two Justices of the Peace, a rehearing having been subsequently allowed on account of the absence of counsel at the first hearing. The defendants were Jack Evans Stuart and James Henry Freitas, of Hokitika, who were charged with the unlawful conversion of a motor lorry and the theft of 13 bottles of beer from the Three Mile hotel. At the initial hearing the accused had been convicted on both charges and each was admitted to probation for two years and ordered to take out a prohibition order to last for the two years.

Theft Of Beer

When the re-hearing commenced today, both pleaded not guilty to both charges, but later amended their plea to guilty in connection with the theft of the beer, Mr M. B. James appeared for the accused. Evidence was given by P. F. Walker and Mrs Walker, licensees of the Three Mile Hotel, H. J. Parsons, Road Services foreman, S, J. Vercoe, Road Services manager, Constable Miller, and Mrs McSeveny (for the prosecution), and William J. Freitas, father of one of the accused, for the defence. “Each offender was before the court on September 13, charged with offences to which they pleaded guilty, and admitted to probation,” said the Magistrate. “Subsequently a rehearing was granted by Justices of the Peace, and this is being held today. Both have now pleaded guilty to the theft of liquor, but the conversion charge is a difficult one and will have to be decided by this court.

“No Authority”

“The act provides for a penalty for [he unlawful conversion of a motorcar without colour of right,” continued Mr Abernethy. “The accused had no lawful authority. I should be only too happy to find from the evidence that they had some colour of right. “It has been suggested by counsel that Government vehicles are taken home for lunch,” he said. “It may be argued that a man doing so has some colour of right as he would be on duty. He may have called at his home, but he would still be on duty. I could conceive there not being a prosecution in such a case, but this is a different case. Neither’ defendant was on duty, and neither had any authority to take this vehicle out. “If a vehicle is taken out without colour of right, if it is taken out by an official for his private use, then a charge of unlawful conversion can be made. If the defendants had been on duty at the time, it may have been a different matter. Unfortunately the whole matter appears to have been one of drink. One can sympahise with the two young men, but they cannot escape. I cannot see any reason to disturb the decision of the Justices of the Peace,” he concluded. Costs of the rehearing, £9 Is lid, were ordered to be paid equally by the defendants.