DEALING IN CYCLES.

Shannon News, 1 August 1924, Page 4

DEALING IN CYCLES.

PASTBYCOOiys SIDE-MNE. i L is becoming a. habit in Christ- ■ church for people to deal in bicycles as a side-line, using their homes as headquarters. In the s Magistrate's Court at Chi-is L-. imrch on Wednesday in a lest cut'-, a pastrycook- was convicted and ordered to pay costs for dealing in bicycle, without a secondhand -dealer's license. The IVavistratf, Mr Wyvern Wilson S'M held that tf\: defendant's home. used as it was by defendant, became business'premises. Arthur Baily I--nns was charged with having car. i.-d on the business or a second-har. i dealer without a I license. Chief-Detectivo T. Gibson prosecuted, and Mr C. K. Thomas appeared -for Benns. "Did u;»'* Bicycles. Chief-Detective Gibson said that Benns was a pastrycook and engaged in dealing in bicyc-ies at his home, 145 Chester street. He "did up" the bicycles and sold them. Anyone dealing .. in second-hand who had a place of business, was required to be; licensed. Benns made his home his place of business, ihe habit was growin ;y in the city, <>[ carrying on this sort of business, and it was the first time that this cl: -a of case had been brought in ChrL:church. Benns admitted that he had- sold nine bicycles, but he.had only three receipts.; He had been in business for' a year. There was nothing against him previously; he had a good character. '' Tlie Chief-Detective did not suggest - that Benns had been dealing with ' stolen bicycles knowingly; but he ' might have been unknowingly. 1 Constable A. Allen said that the de- " fendant had told him that he dealt ! with nine bicycles last year, and three f this "year. . 1 MrThomas: It is just an ordinary . N - home?-— Yes.

libopliolc in Act.

Mr Thomas said that it was obvious:. that if this were a loophole in the Act it had to be blocked. The defendant had answered advertisements and bought and sold bicycles. In the opinion of counsel, Benns was not a, second-hand dealer and his premises did not come under the definition of a place of business. There was nothing about the place to suggest that it was a shop. He had committed no offen.ee. The Magistrate said that a man who did not carry on at a store, shop or other place of business, was not included in the Act. The defendant had two businesses —one as a pastrycook, for which he was paid wages;. tho other business,' that of buying "doing up" and selling bicycles. That systematic work amounted to a business. He advertised and- people applied to his home, 145 Chester street, where he had his business.- It was not suggested that he was a "hedge" for thieves, but he had brought him-' self under the definition-of a secondhand dealer. He must be convicted. It was a technical breach. Benns would have to pay costs. Chief-Detective Gibson -said that Benns had applied for a second-hand dealer's license. No exception was taken to" it.