INFORMATION WITHHELD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18041, 16 March 1922, Page 3

INFORMATION WITHHELD.

MOTOR-CAR OWNER CHARGED.

SEQUEL TO ANOTHER'S OFFENCE.

A prosecution of interest to motorists was heard in the Police Couri yesterday before Mr. J. W. Poynton, SJil. H. C. Melsop (Mr. Holmden) was charged that, being the owner of a motorcar, the driver of which had committed an offence, he refused to give information in his power which might lead to the identification of the driver. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Evidence was given that on the evening of December 16 defendant's car was in Karangahape Road without a taillight. A constable said he interviewed defendant on the matter at Rotorua and in reply to witness defendant said he did not know who was driving the car. He was not there. He said if the headlights were on the tail-light must be burning. In reply to a question as to where the car was kept he said he did ! not know. He would give no informa--1 tion and walked away. Witness was in plain clothes, but had told '°iendant ho was a constable and read the police report to him.

Counsel said defendant wis at all times ready to give any information he pos[sessed. When interviewed he did not ; know the previous witness was a con- | stable. Defendant did not know who was driving the car. He had left the car in a painter's shop in Auckland with instructions that it was not to be taken out till Christmas ETe. No one had his authority to take it out. He was not , asked where the car was kept. He did not then know who had driven it. He told the constable that if the headlights were burning it was impossible for the tail-light to be out. Defendant gave eridence on the lines of counsel's statement. He was alwafyis willing to give any information he had. Cross-examined he denied that the constable asked where the car wag kept. He admitted he had been fined £3 in January for a similar offence. Ho was in Rotorua at the time and hnd not troubled to appear. The magistrate said that defendant cou'id easily have said he left th? car at a painter's shop. He no doubt felt annoyed about .being interrupted at afternoon 'iea. The by-law was rather a novelty, but it was very necessary and Car owners should bo aware of it, Defendant was convicted and ordered to pay costs, ±!4 4s 4d.