METHODS OF RADIO DEALER.

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 8, 31 July 1930, Page 2

METHODS OF RADIO DEALER.

WHO “OWNED” THE SET. TRIAL INSTALLATION. On a charge that ha was in possession. of a wireless receiving set without being the holder of a licence for th e same, E. T. Marsh was brought before the court at New Plymouth yesterday under circumstances whtich showed some rather extraordinary features connected with ou e dealer’s methods in trying to sell radio sets.

A plea of guilty was entered

Senior-Sergeant M‘Crori e said the defendant had had the set for about 12 months without having a licence for it, and the department asked for a fairly heavy penalty. Mr R. H. Quilliam: I am sorry the department is not here to explain why the defendant should have a heavy penalty imposed on him.

Continuing, consel said the defendant had had the set rather thrust upon him. A dealer had approached him with a view to inducing him to purchase a set, hut he had explained he had no intention of buying one. In the usual way th e dealer suggested he should allow him to install a set “on trial,” saying there would be no harm done if he did 'not purchase. The defendant agreed that it would do no harm, hut again assured the dealer that h e had no intention of purchasing. The set was installed and had been there for 12 months, and it had to ho admitted that It had, cm. a few occasions, been used. When the summons was issued the defendant went to the dealer and asked him to remove the apparatus, as it had got him into trouble. A week late r it had not been removed, and counsel said he wished his client had been present to say whether the set was still there.

The Magistrate; It has never been paid for? Mr Quilliam: Nothing has been pnid on it, and the defendant has no intention of paying for it. The Magistrate: What does a wireless set cost?

Counsel: Probably about £SO. The Magistrate: It seems pretty easy to get a wireless set. Counsel; Oh, you can get anything, sir. It is even easier than getting a motor car. Mr Quillium referred to (ho Act and expressed doubt as to whether, under such circumstances, the defendant could he said to be in possession of the set. All he had done was to give storage to a set which belonged to a dealer. One thing was certain that if ever the defendant did buy a radio set he would not purchase it from th e dealer who had landed him in this position. Apparently it was thought that by a, wearing-down process a sale would be brought abfpt. } The Magistrate said the circumstances should be placed before the department to see if they could do anything with the dealer. A conviction was entered and the defendant was ordered to pay 10s costs. The Magistrate added that if the instructions to Mr Quilliam wore correct the Post and Telegraph Department. should endeavour to apply some discipline to the dealer.