JOHN AMERY’S EXPLOITS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 258, 1 November 1932, Page 3

JOHN AMERY’S EXPLOITS

MOTORING CONVICTIONS ESCAPADE COSTS £55 NO LICENSE FOR FIVE YEARS. Mr. John Amory, thc 20-ycar-old son of Ai r. L. 8. Amery, ALP., who has been so much in thc public eye lately, was disqualified at Westminster Police Court last month from holding a motoring license for live years. He was also ordered to pay £5O in fines and costs amounting to £5 5s for motoring offences. Prosecuting counsel stated that there were, he believed, 70 convictions against John Amery for motor-car offences, and this showed that he was defiant of motor-car laws. “1 think now,” said Air. Boyd, the magistrate, giving his decision, “that the sooner Air. Amery’s career as a motorist is cheeked, the better for everybody.” The allegations in the summonses were dangerous driving, failing to stop, failing to produce a certificate of insurance and failing to produce a driving license. The case was first called a week previously, when defendant did not appear and it was then adjourned. Details of Offences. Defendant was not present in court when thc cases were dealt with, being in France, and defending counsel asked whether the magistrate would take a plea of guilty in his absence and deal with thc case. 1 Prosecuting counsel said that the alleged offences occurred on August 6 at Chelsea, when a police constable saw Amery crossing the King’s Road in a motor-car. The constable noticed that the road fund license was out of date and he stepped into thc centre of the road and extended his arm for him to stop. “Amery drove straight at him,” added counsel,- “suddenly accelerated and swerved over to the off side so that the wheels mounted tho pavement and the constable had to jump aside in order not to bo knocked down.” Amory was seen on August 9 by a police sergeant, and he said, “I may call evidence to show that I was 20 miles away from Chelsea at that time.’’ Disgraceful Behaviour.” The Magistrate raised the question of previous convictions. Counsel: There are an enormous number. On August 20, 1931, he was fined £l2 at Kingston and his license was endorsed, and on another occasion at Reigatc he was fined £5. Counsel for the defence remarked, “There is very little I want to say, because there is very little to be said. What defendant actually did was to behave in a disgraceful manner to this policeman. Boys of 20 very often do very foolish things. His action was done for thc purpose of being rude and offensive to tho policeman when he was trying to stop him. “It was the wrong thing to do, but J do not think anyone was put in real danger. I have nothing to add except to express his very great regret for having behaved in this very reprehensible manner.” Counsel asked for three days in which to pay the fines, and this was granted. _