ILLEGAL SALES OF PETROL LEAD TO TWO PROSECUTINS

Wanganui Chronicle, 25 May 1948, Page 6

ILLEGAL SALES OF PETROL LEAD TO TWO PROSECUTINS

“It is admitted tZ.at Chalk approached Hughes and persuaded ..mi to break the regulations; it is also true tnat juugues, when obliging a friend, did not make aJi excessive charge or profit,” commented Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Wanganui, yesterday, after hearing submissions in the case of a logging contractor and a milk vendor charged with breaches of the Oil Fuel Emergency Regulations, 1939. James Chalk, milk vendor, was fin ed £5, costs, 10s, on each of two charges of purchasing oil fuel except in accordance with the Oil Fuel Regulations. Defendant pleaded guilty through his counsel, Mr. P. L. Dickson. Allred Matthew Hughes, logging contractor, for whom Mr. R. S. Withers appeared, was fined £2 10s, costs 10s, on each of two charges of selling a portion of the oil fuel purchased under a consumer’s licence. Hughes also pleaded guilty. Inspector W. Wilson, prosecuting on behalf of the Transport Department, said that in April he received a complaint that Chalk was obtaining petrol from an unknown source. An examination of Chalk’s oil fuel card at the petrol station where he obtained supplies showed that his drawings had been very irregular compared with the previous month. It was also ascertained that on April 2 Chalk made out a cheque to Hughes for £1 16s for petrol, and that on April 15 he made out a further cheque for a similar amount. When' interviewed, Hughes denied selling petrol to anybody, but when told of the evidence gathered, he made a statement to the effect that on two occasions he sold petrol to Chalk in 12 gallon lots, the price charged being 3s per gallon. Inspector Wilson added that Hughes was in partnership with his brother as a logging contractor and they had a licence for 600 gallons of petrol per month. Hughes paid 2s 9id per gallon for the petrol and the retail price was 2s Hid. “Though this is a company 1 interviewed the other brother, and I quite believe that he had no idea petrol was being sold,” said the inspector. Interviewed later, Chalk admitted all the facts. The regulations provided for a penalty of £lOO or 12 months' imprisonment, and in this case the Oil Fuel Controller was asking for a substantial penalty as a deterrant to others. Mr. Dickson submitted that Chalk’s petrol coupons went astray in March, together with other papers. He applied to the oil fuel office in Wanganui and was allowed 20 gallons for March, but knowing that he would be short in April, decided to approach Hughes, who let him have two lots of 12 gallons. “These regulations were only enacted in 1939, on the outbreak of war, and after the war were temporarily suspended,” counsel added. “The present imposition of the regulations is merely a matter of economical distribution of petrol. There is no danger to men and supplies, as in war time. It is merely an economic matter and not nearly as serious. I would suggest that there is a fair amount of petrol available in New Zealand, but it is conseratively estimated so that here will be a surplus on hand all the time.” The magistrate: You say that when the coupons first disappeared Chalk went to the oil fuel offee and obtained fresh supplies? . Mr. Dickson; He obtained an extra 20 gallons. The magistrate: Then why did he not repeat it on the next occasion? Mr. Dickson: There was a difficulty, and the other course presented itself as an easy means of obtaining petrol. He was a milk vendor and had to have sufficient petrol to deliver his milk. Inspector Wilson: Nc extra petrol has since been applied for. Mr Withers submitted that Hughes used a large amount of petrol as a logging contractor and the present allowance was 450 gallons per month Because logs were not available, his allocation in March was underdrawn by 122 gallons and in April, because of wet weather, he did not draw 279 gallons of his quota. “These sales came about as the result of Chalk approaching Hughes and saying that he was in a jam and could not get petrol. Hughes let him have the petrol so as to help him out. The 3s charged .was a convenient figure and the profit was only ss. This is the case of a man helping another out. It is not a case of black marketing that calls for a heavy penalty,” Mr. Withers added. “It is definitely not the case of a man selling at a high price in order to evade the regulation*.’’ Commenting that the amount of petrol involved totalled 24 gallons, the magistrate fined Chalk £5 on each charge. It was admitted that Chalk approached the other man and persuaded him to break the regulations, the magistrate added, imposing a fine of f2 10s on each charge preferred against Hughes.