HAD A PORTABLE LICENSE

Taranaki Daily News, 25 June 1931, Page 11

HAD A PORTABLE LICENSE

RADIO DEALER BEFORE THE COURT CIRCULAR FROM DEPARTMENT. “It is going to simplify matters if they are not to be allowed to take out portable licenses,” eaid Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in New Plymouth yesterday when convicting Herbert William Lightband and ordering him to pay 13s costs on a charge of being in possession of a radio receiving set without having a license. “Thip cap© presents a. most interest--inw position and one I should like the opportunity to argue upon,” paid Mr. A. A. Bennett when announcing that his client had instructed him to enter a formal plea of guilty and to explain the circumstances so that the court could decide whether a penalty should be imposed. Lightband, said counsel, was charged with possession of a receiving apparatus without having a licence; yet three licenses were held by the firm of Lightband and Wann, Ltd., of which he was a member. They had a dealer’s license and a portable license. The dealer’s license applied only in respect to the premises for which it was issued, but the portable license might be used elsewhere for purposes of demonstration. It authorised the holder to instal for a period not exceeding seven days a set in his own place, or private residence or premises of a prospective purchaser for the purpose of demonstration; for any period in excess ot that special authority had to be obtained. The firm of Lightband and Wann was a limited liability company and it was therefore reasonable to regard Lightband as its servant or agent, and to hold that he could hold the portable license, He was not

the owner of a private set, but he took sets to his, residence to demonstrate them and took them away again. There was no doubt he held the two licenses mentioned on the day in question, How could it be said in these circumstances that he did not have a license authorising him to have a receiving set in his home for demonstrating? On June 2 he wrote the departmental engineer pointing out that he did not keep a private set at home and that he considered his position was covered by the portable license; he therefore asked for the withdrawal of the proceedings. The department apparently recognised the difficulty, for on June 18 it sent a circular letter stating that the portable licenses were to be cancelled, that the holders could obtain a refund, and that in future they would be required to take out licenses in the ordinary manner. Counsel maintained that this showed the department recognised that the position was as he had submitted. He contended that Lightband had acted within his rights. He had since complied with the wishes of the department and would immediately take out ail ordinary receiver’s license for use as required. " The fees already paid amounted to more than the 30s required if the department had taken up this attitude before. The magistrate: Do I understand portable licenses will be wiped out? Mr. Bennett: Yes. The circular says they must be cancelled and private licenses taken out. In giving his decision, Mr. Tate said he would regard the case somewhat similarly to those before him last week. All the same the Legislature had provided for heavy penalties; publicity had been given the breaches on this occasion and the object achieved, but heavier fines could be expected in future.