Manipulated His Petrol Bowser, And Gave Short Measure.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18418, 21 March 1928, Page 1

Manipulated His Petrol Bowser, And Gave Short Measure.

DEFENDANT FINED ON TWO CHARGES IN FIRST CASE OF INTERFERENCE WITH MECHANISM.

ACCOMPANIED by spirited, but quickly-quashed, interjections from the defendant, Mr R. T. Bailey, of the Labour Department, outlined to Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M„ this morning the first case in Christchurch of interference with the mechanism of a petrol bowser. Evidence was given that the interlocking machinery of the bowser had been interfered with, and-the pump was left in a stale that permitted of the defendant manipulating the amount to his own satisfaction.

The • following charges were made against .Tames George Andrew's, of Ferry Road. 1. That he did use for trade a measuring: instrument to wit, a petrol pump, which was incorrect. 2. That he did sell by measure to a purchaser petrol short of the quantity demanded. Defendant pleaded guilty on the'first charge, and not guilty on the second. Paid for Four Gallons. Mr Bailey said that the Department had had various complaints about short measure being given by tha defendant. Accordingly a petrol tank was specially fitted to a car, and two of the inspectors Of weights and measures had proceeded to defendant's bowser station in Ferry Road. They asked for four gallons of petrol, and an amount was put into the tank. Four gallons were paid for. A test was made in the presence of the defendant, and it was found that the petrol was two and a half pints short of four gallons. Defendant said that the float of the pump must have stuck. When the pump was examined, Mr Bailey continued, it was found that the machinery of the interlocking system had been tied back. “ I submit,” said Mr Bailey, “ that he did this with the object of manipulating the pump to give short measure. “ Damn liar,” interjected defendant. “ Keep quiet,” said the orderly. “ Interference with defendant’s pumps has been found before,” Mr Bailey continued, “ and he has been given the benefit of the doubt. The legislature takes a very severe view of such frauds under the Weights and Measures Act. “I put it to the court that he gets back the money he loses in selling at Is lid per gallon—a cut rate—by giving the pump to give short measure.” “ Dirty dog,” shouted defendant. *' Keep QUIET,” said the orderly. The Magistrate: Behave yourself. That won’t do you any good.”

Continuing. Mr Bailey said that defendant would at the rate of the present case save 40 gallons on a big petrol storage tank. Defendant: I only get a profit of Id a! gallon. Inspector Hendon, in evidence, told of the test, and said -that the exact shortage in the gallon was one quart, one half pint, and two fluid ounces. He produced a blue print of the bowser showing just where the interference

had taken place. He said the test was a fair one. Second hand Pumps. Defendant, in e\*idence, said that the pumps were bought second-hand, and he had had them tested by inspectors. One had been giving a little too much and one a little short. They had been tested again. The pump was short on four gallons, but it measured five gallons correctly. It was the float that had caused the mi. take. Defendant had not tried to cheat anyone. “We sold at a cut price to get business,” he said, “and did not manipulate the pump to cheat customers. I have been in business here and in England and have always had a very good character. The interlocking mechanism was taken back because it wasted time, and a washer was put in. It was not put in to make the machine manipulatable. I put four gallons through an ordinary tap, and had lost a pint and a half. When the test was carried out there was a big wind, and the stream was allowed to fall. It was not a fair test. It’s not as serious as it looks.” Mr Bailey: “Was not a sack put around to keep off the wind?”—Yes. “It was only a dull day, not very windy?—lt was windv and rainy and dull. The Magistrate: Why did you alter the interlocking mechanism?—We thought it was in the way. I wouldn’t have done it if I had thought^it would lav me open to a prosecution. Mr Bailey: You say you know of other bowsers where the interlock has been tied back. Where is one?—Next door to me. Defendant: If anyone had been complaining. our competitors would have made jolly good use of those complaints. Mr Bailey: Were you surprised when you learned that wc had had complaints? Defendant: After this, nothing will surprise me. “In th*s Way.” To the Magistrate: We tied back the interlocking mechani.m because we thought it. was in the way. If I thought it would have caused a prosecution I would never have done it. It was not done with any intent of fraud. The Magistrate: Why didn’t you leave the fixing of the pump to the officers whose task it is to fix such matters?—l did not think they could get it done in time.

The Magistrate: I think the Department's case has been fully prdved. Defendant is convicted and fined £7 on the first charge, £3 on the second.”

cost will have to be considered, and th& Mayor, the Rev J. K. Archer, expressed the view that if the city was to buy a site the cost would probably be £IO,OOO or £12,000. “There is no doubt at all that the proposed site is a very admirable one, but it is a debatable question whether it should be used,” -said the Mayor. “Opinions on the Domains Board as well as among the general public seem to be divided on the matter. My own idea is, of course, that we cottld not for a moment think of allowing that site or any other site in the Gardens to be handed over to a private individual, but seeing that in this case it would be retained by the public and probably used more than any other area in the Gardens, I’m personally in favour of using it. “I do not think it would seriously interfere with the vista, as it has been called, but that, per contra, it would great! y add to the aesthetic beauty of the entrance to the Gardens. Apart from this, however, the practical question is whether those who are opposed to the use of this site can suggest an alternative one. If the city is to buy a vSite it yrill cost, as far as I can see, £IO,OOO or £12,000. “Is the city prepared to spend this amount or is there some well-to-do citizen prepaied to give it? That is a practical consideration. As far as I can see there is no alternative site which would be acceptable to the citizens on offer.” The Mayor added that perhaps it should be said that Mr M’Dougall had never made it an absolute condition that the Gardens site suggested must be used, but had simply indicated his preference for that site. Ilis only absolute condition was that a suitable site must be provided without encroaching upon his gift.”