Duty on Motors.
PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD THE CASES DISMISSED. [By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) IU NITKI) I*REMS A«BOCIATU»N. J (Received 9.55 a.m.) London, January 19. i The motor customs prosecutions , were dismissed without defendants bej iug called. (Received 11.5 a.m.) London, January 19. | Mr Bodkin, K.C., submitted that j Walter Kemsley had no knowledge of the transactions in Australia. The other defendants may have known, j but not fraudulently. No evidence had been called to show that their (firm profited by the transactions. 1 Neale’s evidence showed that the lvalues charged to Australian houses were the same as the firm paid to British manufacturers. The allegations that the price of the chassis was inflated had not been supported. Between May, 1912, and June, 1913, the Government tried to get the firm to give evidence against their Australian clients.
The Magistrate considered that though the case was a proper subject for inquiry, no jury would convict on tlio documents submitted, in the absence of witnesses who alone are able to give evidence concerning the transactions to which the documents referred. Except as regarded the Cle-ment-Talbott transaction no such evidence had been called. He complimented Neale and Shorland on their fullness, frankness, and fairness in giving evidence; also Neale on his preparation of the documentary evidence.
At the outset the defendants in the alleged motor conspiracy case were Ralph Millbourn, Walter Kemsley, Edward Bruce, Anthony Cuthbertson, and Alfred Kemsley, who were charged with having conspired with Raymond Kemsley, William Crowle, Cecil Bray, Charles B. Kellow, Isaac Phizackerley, and others to defraud His Majesty’s Customs of duty on motor cars, cycles, tyres, and accessories imported into Australia by means of false invoices and declarations between January and July, 1910. At one of the hearings Mr E. Fulton, counsel for the Commonwealth, read several of the letters to manufacturers regarding the prices at which portions of motors intended for Australia should be invoiced. Tozer’s firm wrote to the Belsize Company directing that packing should not be mentioned in future invoices in order to avoid duty. It also wrote to the Swift Company, asking that catalogues should be packed in the seats of, motor cars, and to the De Dion Company suggesting that the cost of footboards and wings should be included in the price of the chassis. Charles Brown Kellow and Raymond Ewart Kemsley wore previously charged in Melbourne with conspiracy. There were two counts against the accused, one relating to charges of conspiracy against a syndicate prior to March, 1909,, and the other against the Melbourne Taxi-cab Company, into which the syndicate was formed. The principal feature of the charge was that Kellow, in conspiracy with Kemsley and other persons in England, suppressed the true prices paid for taxi-cabs, and obtained from the local company larger amounts than it was understood were being paid. There were two lengthy trials before Mr Justice Cussen at the Supreme Court, Melbourne. The first terminated on April 27, 1912, when the jury failed to arrive s}t a verdict. The second trial commenced on May 28 following, and on May 31 the jury returned a verdict of not guilty against both accused on both counts, and they were discharged.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/STEP19140120.2.25
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 17, 20 January 1914, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
529Duty on Motors. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 17, 20 January 1914, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Copyright undetermined – untraced rights owner. For advice on reproduction of material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.