RADIO SETS

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 245, 14 September 1929, Page 8

RADIO SETS

UNLICENSED USERS. FINES "IMPOSED IN AUCKLAND. (By Telegraph.—Special to Standard.) AUCKLAND, Sept. 14. Again to-day at the Police Court a number of persons were prosecuted by the Post and Telegraph Department tor having unlicensed radio sets. B. H. Yatt, who pleaded gnißjj when asked by Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., why he did not take out a license, replied that he thought he did not need to have a license until he got results from his set. , TT . “Oh, Nonsense,” said Mr Hunt. You are a plain pirate dnd you are fined £3 and costs.” When the name of G. Chambers was calicd, a lady advanced to the front or the court and pleaded guilty, explaining that the set belonged to her son, who took it in exchange for a cooker. Mr Hunt: The difference between a cooker and a radio set is that you pay no license on the cooker. The lady further stated that her sons had been out of work otherwise they would have got a license. “If you must have luxuries you must pay for them,” said the magistrate in imposing a fine of £2 and costs. There was no appearance of I. RHusband. . The radio inspector said that this defendant had been building sets for dealers and thought that he did not have tp have a license as the set was not for his own entertainment. Mr Hunt: Another pirate; £3 and 15s costs. Then there was the case of Charles Laltin. This defendant explained that both he and his son had been out of work for some time. Only for that the license would have been taken out. The set was dismantled after the inspector called. The Magistrate: Well, you had better selhtlie set now to pay the fine.” Lakin was fined £3 and costs.