SERIOUS CHARGES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17781, 17 May 1932, Page 10

SERIOUS CHARGES

NAPIER MOTOR CASE LENGTHY POLICE EVIDENCE The Napier Courthouse was again well attended yesterday morning whim the charges against William Ebeimzer Hysiop, managing director of the Tourist Motor Company, John Young Hannay, the Napier representative of the firm, and Leonard Ralston Wyllie, service driver, were brought before Mcsrs. W. (>. Venables and R. Hay Chapman, .7.1’ ’s. The charge against the three men were as follows;—That on November 11, 1921, at Hastings, with intent to defraud, they did attempt to obtain tile sum of £ 1100 from the United Insurance Company in respect of a nineseater Studebaker ear, destroyed by lire on ’October 22, 1921, by falsely representing the selling price and value of the car. Hysiop and Hannay were also jointly charged with attempting to obtain £125 from the United Insurance Company, Ltd., by falsely representing the sale price ami value of a seven-sealer tourer which was also destroyed in the fire. THE CROWN’S CASE In outlining the ease, reports the Telegraph, the Crown Prosecutor stated that the case for the police would rely to a great extent upon documentary evidence. The first charge concerned a ear which was acquired by the Tourist Motor Company, altered to a special form, and brought to Hastings in March, 192.1. The cost to the company on its arrival in Hastings was £BOO. Evidence would be called to show that this car was later offered for sale variously at £llsO, £I2OO and £1250. On March 10 the company entered into a contract with Leonard Wyllie for the sale of the ear. This was not an actual sale to Wyllie, however, for lie was to keep it really for his brother, who was waiting discharge from bankruptcy. When this occurred the liabilities and the ear were to be transferred to him.

There was a memorandum by the accused Hannay that he had signed the sale to AVyilie for £1250 but Inter Hannay reported the terms to Hysiop, stating that he had “balooned” tin* price from £1250 to £ISOO in order that they could get desired terms from the Guarantee Corporation.

The Grown Prosecutor detailed the practice of motor (inns in their relations with the Guarantee Corporation, one of the principles of the policy being that the purchaser should pay onethird of the purchase price in cash. On March 10, a hire-purchase agreement was signed, showing that the ale had taken place for the sum of £ISOO. which, with interest, amounted to £ Hi!) I Bs. The document stated that the sum of £SOO was paid in cash. ’ TALK OF ANOTHER CAR Instead of this, the Crown held that £SO was paid in cash, in addition to which a car valued at £IOO was given •uni two promissory notes, one for £IOO and tlie other for £250. The car taken in by the company was not Wyllie’s own property, but belonged to his brother’s wife. This was re-sold to Mrs. Wyllie the same day for £l5O, for which a promissory note was given, this being eventually cancelled. The promissory note for £IOO given by Wyllie was dishonored and the one for £250 was never presented, the transaction being a clear case of “ballooning” in order to place a false value on the vehicle. Continuing, the Crown Prosecutor stated that on September 14 the whole transaction was transferred to the accused's (Wyllie) brother, E. A'. Wyllie, who signed up an entirely new hirepurchase agreement. The promissory notes then outstanding against the accused Leonard Wyllie were withdrawn and his interest in the matter ceased.

The ease stands part heard.—Tele graph.