WIRELESS PROSECUTION.

North Otago Times, Volume CVII, Issue 17748, 19 March 1927, Page 7

WIRELESS PROSECUTION.

Press AB-sociatisa V

INTERESTING AUCKLAND CASE.

.'(Per

AUCKLAND, Last Night, A case of importance to owners of wireless receiving sets — the first prosecution of its kind in Auckland — was heard in the Police Court before Mr W. H. M'Kean, S.M. to-day, when Norman W. Smith (Mr Luxford) w,as charged with establishing a set in a place other than prescibed by the terms of his license and with offering a set for sale without possessing a license for the purpose, It was stated by the Radio Xnspector that defendant had a license to erect a receiving set at his home at Onehunga, but he had gone to Ruawai on a holiday, taking it with him and re-erected it there. While at Ruawai he had demonstrated the apparatus to some people and told them that the same firm which had supplied his set would provxde them with au outfit. However, he did not possess a salesman's license. When interviewed he admitted that the manager of the firm 'had offered hijn some remuneration if he could place any sets, and that he was told that if any trouble arose the firm's license would cover him. _ Mi Luxford said the saies question protected the whole business of' the distribution of wireless sets throughout the Dominion. The strict letter of the law apparently hekl that anyone was guilty of an offence who influenced persons to buy a set. Defendant had merely told the people at Ruawai that the agency was a good one and could provide such a set as he possessed. A technical offence was therefore being committed by every radio dealer in the Dominion who made a point of telling purchasers to show their sets to their friends. Even newspaper advertising which found its ways into the towns where a dealer was not lioensed would c reate an offence if the Act were interpre^ted strictly, but this was merely rCducing it to "a complete absurdity. The Magistrate said the section of the Act applied to people carrying qn the business of dealers without license, It could hardly be suggested that every pei son employed behind a radio dealer's counter shouJd be licensed. That was not the intention of the Legislature. Defendant was not a dealer and had merely j demonstrated his set. "It is just as j well for users of sets to know the provisions of the Act," the Magistrate added. If sets are moved from dne place o an other without the j sanction of the D'epartment, the I owners are liable to a penalty. As this is the first prosecution, I willi not impose a penalty, but if. is es~i sential fpr many reasons jfibat the ! authorities should know the loca- j tion of all sets' and the drawing of ! attention to the provisions of the ! Act will, I hope, serve some useful • purpose. i Defendant was convicted and or- ! dered to pay costs ou the first j charge, the second charge being dis- ! missed. j