ALLEGED MISUSE OF OIL FUEL

Southland Times, Issue 25763, 29 August 1945, Page 7

ALLEGED MISUSE OF OIL FUEL

CASE HEARD AT GORE

The Gore Magistrate’s Court was occupied throughout the whole day yesterday in hearing charges involving alleged breaches of the oil fuel regulations against Phillip James Hefferman, a farmer, of Waipahi. The case was one which was adjourned from July 17, when the defendant was charged with the misuse of oil fuel between February 2, 1945, and February 21, 1945, at Gore; between March 2, 1945, and March 21, 1945, at Gore; and on divers dates between April 6, 1945, and April 27, 1945. When the charges were then heard, Mr A. Smyth, who appeared for the defendant, contended that the wording was too vague and the charges were adjourned until yesterday, when the Magistrate (Mr R. C. Abernethy) gave his judgment on the points raised. He held that having regard to petrol misuse, which might come from different directions, the information was insufficient to put the defendant on trial. He said that the three informations were too vague as to the place and certain facts, and the defendant was entitled to more information about the alleged misuse of oil fuel. On the application of the police the charges were withdrawn. The amended charges then made were as follows:—(1) On March 17, at Wyndham, having purchased oil fuel under a consumer’s licence, he used it for the purpose of travelling from Waipahi to Wyndham, a purpose other than set out in his application; (2) that he used oil fuel for travelling from Waipahi to Charlton in a truck, a purpose other than set out in his application for a licence. The defendant was also charged with failing to furnish a statement relating to the acquisition and use of oil fuel.

Pleas of not guilty were entered by Mr Smyth on behalf of the defendant to all four charges. The defendant elected to be dealt with summarily. CASE FOR PROSECUTION

Sergeant C. D. King, who conducted the prosecution, said that on July 10, 1944, the defendant, who was the owner of a truck, applied for a licence of 300 gallons, to be used in his truck during the year which would end on June 30, 1945. The amount of 156 gallons which he was granted was later increased to 176 gallons. Special licences were also approved for 41 gallons, making

a total of 217 gallons. The petrol granted on the original licence was purchased in bulk at Gore and the 41 gallons on special licences was drawn at Waipahi.

Action was taken by Traffic Inspector A. McPhee as a result of information from the

Oil Fuel Controller, continued Sergeant king. He gave a list of the various occasions on which the truck was seen in places in the Eastern District. During the period from February 6 to April 26, he said, the defendant’s truck was seen at Gore on no fewer than 17 occasions. He had applied for a licence to make only three trips to Gore during this time. On February 21 the duplicate warrant of fitness had been inspected, the speedometer reading given being 06,031 miles. The warrant was dated August 17, 1944. When the speedometer reading was examined on the same day (February 21) the mileage shown was 3194 miles. As the defendant had told Traffic Inspector McPhee that the truck would do only 12 miles to the gallon, a total of 266 gallons of petrol must have been used during that period. Evidence was also given by Sergeant King about the defendant’s alleged refusal to make a statement relating to the use of the petrol. David Christopher Hardy, acting for the Oil Fuel Controller, said no special licences had been issued for defendant to make a special visit to Gore between Ma’rch 2 and March 21 and none had been issued for him to travel to Wyndham on March 17. For the period ending on June 30, 1945, a licence for 525 gallons had been issued for use in his tractor. There was no issue of coupons for trucks of the type when the owner was the holder of a licence for oil fuel. COUPON PETROL In reply to Mr Smyth, the witness said that Heffernan was the owner of a motorcar, foi* which he would be entitled to use coupons. He would have been entitled to use coupon petrol in the truck and to use the truck for pleasure on this petrol. Colin Robert Barron, employed by the National Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd., Gore, gave evidence of the amount of petrol drawn by’the defendant for his truck and tractor. The total to which he was entitled

up to April 10, 1945, was 528 for the tractor and 176 for the truck. This was supplied through the Vacuum Oil Company. To Mr Smyth, he admitted that he did not see it personally supplied, but had received the invoices from the oil company. Details of the dates on which the defendant’s truck was allegedly in Gore and at other places were supplied by Traffic Inspector McPhee. The witness said that on February 21, in company with Senior-Ser-geant J. H. S. Hogg, he had approached the defendant in Main street. The defendant refused him any information at all. Mr Smyth: What specific information did you ask him for? Mr McPhee: I asked him where he was getting all the petrol from to do all the running. ... You did not ask him what petrol he used on February 10?—No. Senior-Sergeant Hogg said that when he and Inspector McPhee approached the defendant for information he remarked: ‘lf you think you have a case against me, take me to the Court.” Constable W. L. Hatton also gave evidence. CASE FOR DEFENCE Mr Smyth submitted that the defendant had nothing to answer on any of the informations presented. On the charges alleging that the petrol was used for purposes other than that set out in the application, there was no evidence before the Court to ( show what petrol he used or under what authority he procured part of the petrol. There was evidence to show that he was entitled to petrol on coupons and that he was entitled thus to considerably more petrol than the evidence had shown him to have used on the dates of the two charges dealing with the alleged misuse of petrol. The Court was asked to make deductions from the estimate of 12 miles to the gallon, which the defendant said was the truck’s performance, but that was a low mileage, and l ! appeared from the police evidence that trucks would do varying mileages. There was r.othing in the police case to show, when the defendant had driven to the races, what petrol was used. • The police were trying to prove the charges by a process or elimination. It was no offence to use coupon petrol in a truck and no evidence had been presented that defendant’s car had e y e J been on the road. Mr Smyth also contended that the defendant had not refused to answer i specific question. . The defendant, in evidence, denied inat he had refused to answer a specific question. He had said to Constable Hatton: lam in a hurry and will discuss the matter witn you some other time.” He admitted that h refused to discuss the matter with Constable Timmins, of Clinton. .. The case was adjourned till the next sitting of the Court.