Transport Operator Fined For Breach Of Petrol Regulations

Wanganui Chronicle, 4 May 1948, Page 6

Transport Operator Fined For Breach Of Petrol Regulations

"This is really a breach o£ the form required, and that takes a good deal of the sting out of the offence—there have been other cases, but they did not display the same mitigating features,” commented Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate s Court, Wanganui, yesterday, after Arthur Gursham Candish, transport operator, Kaitoke, had pleaded guilty through his counsel (Mr. J. S. D. Tizard) to a breach of the Oil Fuel Emergency Regulations. A fine of £3, costs 10s, was imposed. Inspector W. Wilson, who prosecuted on behalf of the Transport Department, said that petrol rationing was introduced in November last before the coupon system was reinstated. Defendant had a pump at Kaitoke and was licenced to supply his own vehicles. At the end of November a reading showed that he had overdrawn by 104 gallons, and when he said that he did not have sufficient petrol with which to carry on, he was advised to make application for more. Defendant was a very busy man and difficult to find at home, hence it was the end of February before his pump could be read again. It was then found that he had ovedrdawn to the extent of 755 gallons. “Defendant is a transport operator carrying on essential work, and if he had applied for more petrol he would have got it,” Inspector Wilson added. The Magistrate: Even to that extent? Inspector Wilson: Yes. The ryagistrate: This is not the case of a man disposing of the petrol to any other person. He was merely using more than he was authorised to use?

Inspector Wilson: That is so. The inspector had stated the case very fairly, said Mr. Tizard, adding that rationing was in force for .only a period, during which defendant could have gone to other petrol stations for more supplies. He had relied on his accountant applying for petrol and was not aware that supplies had been overdrawn. In March, after the coupon syaiem was introduced, defendant was allowed 690 gallons. He was carrying out important work, which included the transport of dairy produce and live stock and also topdressing. He would have obtained all the petrol he needed if he had asked for it, but he made the mistake of not ttiking out figures and applying for the required allocation. No attempt had been made to evade the regulations.

“The inspector admits that defendant was carrying out an essential service and could have obtained a licence for the extra quantity of petrol if he had applied for it,’’ said the magistrate.