DEALERS' CARS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23330, 23 October 1937, Page 5

DEALERS' CARS

QUESTION OF REGISTRATION « INCIDENTAL " USE PERMISSIBLE AN IMPORTANT DECISION A case which was described as of considerable importance to motor dealers throughout New Zealand was heard by Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Port Chalmers Magistrate's Court yesterday. The charge, which was preferred against Leonard Thomas Oliver, an employee of the firm of Cossens and Black, Ltd., was that of using an unregistered motor vehicle, and it was held by the court that no offence had been committed. Senior Sergeant Mathieson said the defendant had been seen driving a motor car through George street, Port Chalmers, on Sunday, October 10, and it had had affixed to it dealer's demonstration plates. It had been stopped by the police and the driver had been asked his reason for using demonstration plates on a Sunday and had expressed the opinion that he was entitled to do so. The police had disagreed and as a result the prosecution had been brought. Mr M. Hanan, who appeared for 1 Oliver, said the facts were admitted and only a point of law required to be decided. The defendant would plead not guilty. He said the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, had been amended by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1927, to. extend the use of a motor vehicle by a motor dealer: This was further amended by Section 64 of the Finance Act, 1933, which added the proviso "that the motor vehicle must be held by the dealer for the purpose of sale or. for the purposes of his business as a manufacturer of or dealer 'in motor vehicles whether or not it may at any time be used for any other purpose." It was submitted that so long as the car was held substantially for the purposes of the motor dealer's business of dealing in motor vehicles an incidental or collateral, use of the vehicle was expressly permitted under the provisions of the amending Act. Mr Hariari added that the case:' was one of great importance and interest to motor dealers throughout New Zealand and that such dealers' plates were frequently used in circumstances similar to those revealed by this case.

Senior-sergeant Mathieson contended that if the defendant were using the car for business on the date to which the charge related he was guilty of Sunday trading, and if he were not using it for business purposes he was guilty of the charge against him. The magistrate said he was satisfied regarding the effect of the amendments to the legislation. It meant that a vehicle had to be held for the purposes of'the dealer's business, but there might be incidental use of the vehicle without the commission of an offence. This was the case in the present charge. The car had been privately used on a Sunday, which was an incidental use and no offence had been committed. The information would be dismissed. ■ '