TAKING OF CARS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21325, 28 October 1932, Page 13

TAKING OF CARS

CONVERSION OR THEFT . LAW MAKES DISTINCTION }f , COLLAPSE OF PROSECUTION " POSITION NOT SATISFACTORY " A peculiarity of the law, under which a man who removes a inotor-car from a garage and drive's it about "with the intention of returning it is not guilty of the , crime of theft, led to the collapse of- a case in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr, Justice Herdman said the position was far from satisfactory, and ifc might "be that the Legislature should consider it. The accused men in the case, Charles Simelhay, aged 26 (Mr. Webb), Francis Edward Pinker, aged 20 (Mr. Noble), and Francis William Henry Jeeves, aged 23 (Mr. Hogben), were jointly charged that on August 7, 1932, they broke and entered a motor garage at Lucerne Road. Remuera, and stole a motor-car valued at £3OO, the property of Miss Elizabeth McGovern. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Meredith, said it was clear from the men's own admissions that they had broken into the garage and taken the car, which was destroyed by fire at Green Lane early next morning. The fire was probably caused by inexpert handling. The driver might have slipped int6 reverse gear when the car was g°'"g forward, with the result that the shaft was broken. The shaftapparently ruptured the benzine tank and the benzine was set alight by a spark. The main question for the jury was , whether these men were actually stealing the car. If, as they said, they genuinely intended to return it, then that was not theft. Oar a Total Wreck The owner of the car, Miss McGovern, gave evidence that her garage had been broken into and the car taken. Evidence that the car was a total wreck and not worth repairing was given by R. D. Petersen, insurance adjuster. Detective C. L. Packman read a statement given to him by Jeeves, in which Jeeves said that he and Simelhay came in to town from Tuakau, where they were working. They missed the bus back to Tuakau, and with' Pinker decided to take a car from a garage and drive to Tuakau. They drove about town for a time, and at Green Lane there was an explosion and the car burst into flames.-' If the car had not caught firo they would have taken it back. Similar statements fro.n the other two accused were read. Mr. Hogben submitted that there was no evidence for. the case to go to the juiy. These men had undoubtedly commilted an offence, but. in order to substantiate the charge of theft there must be the intention of actually stealing the car. The present case was nothing more than a conversion of the car. * Evidence Falls Short Mr. Meredith agreed that that was the position. Anyone who converted a motorcar wa 3 liable to summary prosecution with a penalty of three months' imprisonment. It seemed an outrageous thing that people could practically go and "burgle", a car and then say they intended to put it back. Of course, it was always open to a jury to find that the men -intended to steal'the car, but li 6 could not suggest that there was sufficient evidence of that in this case. ; . His Honor said ifc would seem that &■ the law stood if a man went, and took a car away with the intention of returning it that did not amount to the crime of theft. It might be that the Legislature should consider whether the breaking inW a garage and taking a car even for a short time should not be regarded as a crime punishable under the Crimes Act. This was a serious matter, but it seemed thdfc the only proceedings were before a magistrate under the Police Offences Act. Thtit was not satisfactory—very far from ft: However, his duty was to point out thai the Crown evidence fell short of what -was necessary. It was an unsatisfactory position, but there was no alternative. He, therefore, directed the jury to find a verdict of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict accordingly and the accused were discharged.