SEASON TICKET INCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3036, 24 March 1917, Page 10

SEASON TICKET INCIDENT

WELLINGTON LAWYER AS DEFENDANT. ■ David M. Firidlay, barrister and solicitor, was charged with having on February 2 failed to/exhibit his ticket on the ferry steamer Cobar when ho was requested to dp so.

"Mr. H.rE. Henderson, representing the 'Eastbourne Borough Council, conducted the prosecution. ; Mr. 0. Eeere defended.-....

Mr. Henderson said there was no suggestion that the defendant had acted, with the intention of evading payment of. his fare. He had a householder's ticket, due to expire on May 24. The council, however, looked to a man in Mr.. Findlay's position to assist them, and.in this case the.result of his refusal to exhibit his ticket, had been that another person (since un- , traced) had also refused to produce his ticket. It might be, inconvenient for the passengers to have all tho tickets inspected, but it was necessary in order to prevent persons from avoiding payment of their fares.

The ticket inspector on the Cobar gave evidence that he knew the defendant to have a householder's ticket. Mr. Findlay, when asked to produce his ticket, said he did not have it with 'him. He was asked to pay a fare, and declined to do bo. Witness told him he would report tho matter. Therewas no friction between witness and the defendant.

Defendant, stated, that he was the holder of'an''annual''ticket, which ho had never on -any, occasion produced.' He,had,had annual tickets practically .continuously oiiririg the past five years. .-Witness.'had- never been asked Uv his ticket before. February 2. He was well known to the men and the master of the ship, and he always left his ticket at home. On the occasion in question ■witness had no desire to be obi4.-iic-tive. Ho maintained that he in; not obliged to pay his fare, as it was already paid. The ticket bore an inscription stating that it must be produced or.' surrendered on demand, bu I that was a.matter between witness and the council. It'had nothing to do with the Shipping, and Seamen 'Act, under which the present charge was laid. '■: Mr. Bcere argued that the defendant was under no legal obligation to produce his ticket. The Act was not applicable to an" ordinary ferry service. Mr. Henderson did iiot reply.

His Worship held that a. technical 'offence had been committed. Defendant was convicted and discharged.