Traffic Charges Fail

Chronicle (Levin), 19 January 1948, Page 2

Traffic Charges Fail

In the Magistrate's Court, Otaki, on Thursday V. Potter, taxi proprietor, was -charged, firstly, with using a passenger service vehicle v/hen a certific.ate of fitness was not in force and, secondly, with permitting the vehicle to be used as a taxi when the full amount of the insurance premium had nOt been paid. T. J. McChesney, as'Potter's partner, was separately charged iikewise. Mr. B. H. Rhode's, appearing for defen'dants, pleaded xiot guilty'to all charges. Inspector Davis stated that in October he noticed a car with passengers and in consequence questioned the defendanis, who •stated that they wer.e going lo Wellington in a private car. The license for a private car cost £2, while for a taxi it was £15/ a difference of £13. Mr. Rhodes pointed out that the taxi and car had both. made? the trip to Wellington with passengers, but that the private car made no charge. The firm had three cars in all, but one was ip a garage for repair, and had promi'sed in time to take Chinese to a funeral in Wellington. However, parts were unobtainable and consequently there was a delay. A private car had therefore been used rather than break faith with the Chinese. The car was not for hire and no charge was made, but* £7 10s was charged for the taxi. This, he contended, was within the law. Trevor McChesney, one of the defendants in evidence, stated that he worked in conjunction with Potter, and that both were ex-service-men. It was only because the taxi was not ready for use that the private car had to be used, and this was only used as a last resource. He consider.ed that the charge for his taxi was most reasonable, as he had to travel 53 miles and had' to wait for sonie time. His usual fare would have worked out at £7 14s 9d The magi'strate, Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., said that while not blaming tlie inspector for laying the informations, as his charge had

oeen maae, he could not do otherwise than dismiss all the charges. T. J. McChesney was further charged with parking a car in a prohibited area and also with failing to move a motor vehicle to a Place of saf.ety when directed by the inspector to do so. Mr. Rhodes also pleaded not guilty to these charges. Inspector Davis. stated that hQ was near the Telegraph Hotel, and noticed defendant's car in a "no hrea." He told the driver that he was committing an offence and pointed out that he had been warned on previous occasions. Defendant stated . that he would remove his car, but when he (the inspector) returned later he noticed the car still there. Mr. Rhodes contended that dereiTdant did not commit an offence as the sign did not state clearly where the parking place was. He further quoted authorities relating whi^-fv, SaP\Signs Regulations, which had to be read .in coniunc?n°J the Traffic Regulations, ;and that m any event the prohibition did not apply after 6 p.m which alone was fatal to the inspector's cases. Inspector Davis contended that s®, a,r,ea was clearly defined, and that the car had no "right to be parked where it was. Trevor McChesney 'admitted that the inspector had spokeh to him but maintamed he had a right to park where bte had done -The magistrate uphel'd the def ence and pointed out that a 'parking area should be more clearly defined. He dismissed both informatu°nSAfa^ing the attention of the Otaki Borough Council should bo drawn to the matter, as the signs were madequate.