Tyre Makers Were Defrauded—Charges
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BRISTOL magistrates' co t was crowded to capacity on Tuesday when eight male defendants, all of them connected with the motor accessory or transport business, were summoned for conspiring together to defraud a number of tyre manufacturers, members of the Tyre Manufacturers' Conference, Ltd., in respect of deals relating to used tyres,.
Among the accused were two directors of a Bristol firm. Some of the accused also faced charges of false pretences and, said Mr. Frederick Beezley, appearing for the Director of Public Prosecutions, they knew not only that they were telling lies, but went to a certain amount of trouble to colour those lies. It was alleged that some Of the defendants had purchased used tyres collected from various parts of the country and claimed rebate on them, alleging that they were defective.
"They collected the names of mothersin-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and other people for the purpose of acconfmodation addresses," alleged Mr. Beezley.
The accused are, William Henry Creed (67), Darlington Avenue, Fitton, and Morton Charles Cullimore (60), of London Road, Stroud, Gloucester, both directors of Luxton's Tyre Service, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol; Clifford John Guy (31), of Belg,rave Close, Bristol, the firm's manager; John Huggins (42), Lucia Crescent, Bristol, and Ian Keith Marshall (27), of Bengrove Lane, Bristol, both trading as Tyre Services (Bristol); John Grant (30), of Cosiland Drive, Bristol; Raymond Ronald Holcombe (26), Hercy Gardens, and George Malcolm Campbell Robertson (46), Blakely Road, Bristol.
Robertson faced 17 charges relating to false pretences and Huggins and Marshall 13 joint false pretences charges.
• Guy was jointly charged. with Robertson, Huggins and Marshall in respect of all the false pretences charges.
On Tuesday, the court heard evidence from Mr. .Reginald Byford, secretary of Tyre Manufacturers' Conference, • Ltd., Whitehall, London, who was closely questioned by the defence as to the precise meaning and application of the form on which application for concessions in respect of alleged defective tyres were • claimed. He agreed that recently a new form . had been substituted for the old one. The defence had alleged that the old form made no distinction between " owner " and "user." The hearing continued.