Haulier Wins Appeal in Tyre-return Case
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AT Rotherham Quarter Sessions, a few days ago, the Recorder, Mr. E. Russell Gurney, allowed the appeal of Edwin J. Shaw, haulage contractor, of Rotherham, against a cdnviction by the Rotherham Borough magistrates, • and granted him £10 cests, The. appellant was fined £25 with £13 5s. Costs on April 22, 1943, on a summons for making an alleged recklesS state 'ment of.a stock of tyres.in July, 1942, which was said to be false in a material pa rtic Ular Mr. J. McLusky, for the respondents, said that the appellant registered with an authorized tyre depot and he was called upon, in accordance with regulations, to make a. declaration of the stock of .tyres in his possession. That •
return gave a stock of 38, but. it was the allegation of the prosecution that the actual. stock at the time was 43.
The appeal was against the conviction, appellant denying that the state-meat was. reckless, and against the amount.
-"Mr. McLusky said that Mr. Shaw had put his signature to the declaration, and it would not have been difficult for him to investigate the stock and make sure that his declaration was correct. A discrepancy ofseven. tyres in a declaration of 38 was certainly not a
negligible amount. . • Mr. Beaton, for the appellant, sub mitted.that it was for the respondents to establish that the total of tyres was inaccurate, and the only way they had attempted to dose was by inference. He asked what motive would there be for appellant to make a false return?
Mr. McLusky Said that the question of motive was irrelevant. What appellant had said was that he had filled .up the form, • without paying much attention-to its Wording, in order to show the stock of tyres he had on running vehicles: His evidence showed that he was not 'in *the least concerned with the word " registered."
The Recorder said that he was inclined to believe the discrepancY in the return. Was small,--but even So, it was material that every tyre .shOuld have been accounted for. He had come to the cOnclusion. that the form was false in, a material particular, but in one which did not suggest any dis
honesty. He said that not „without -difficulty, on the whole, he was inclhied to think the charge of recklessness had . not been made out, and the 'question of penalty did not, therefore,. arise.
Taking into account the small. discrepancy. in. the .return, the whole of the circumstances, and the misleading character of the' form• supplied by the Ministry. , reSpondents had not proved their case to his satiSfactidn, and the -appeal would he allowed.