SEASON TICKET

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 164, 5 April 1919, Page 3

SEASON TICKET

EASTBOURNE FERRY SERVICE INTERESTING CASE In the Supremo Court yesterday after-, noon, beforo His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, a-case of interest to season ticket holders on the Eastbourne ferry service was heard. This was an appeal by David M. Findlay, solicitor, Wellington, against the i'ccision of Mr. L. (.1. Keid, S.M. The information alleged that the defendant, on February 2, 10)7, was travelling on tho. steamer Cobar from Wellington to Day's Bay. and when requested to oxhibit his steamer ticket failed lo do so. After the hearing of the case the defendant was convicted and discharged, aiiu against this decision the defendant appealed on the ground that it was erroneous in law.

Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. L. L'B. Edwards, appeared for the. f.ppellant, and Mr. IT. E. Anderson for the respondent.

The facts, as stated by the Magistrate, | were that it had' been proved that tho defendant was a passenger on the steamer on the date in question; ho was asked to produce his ticket, and failed to do so, on the ground that he was a season ticket liolder. It was admitted that defci.dant was tho holder of an annual family ticket, and frequently travelled without being asked to produce ft. The question submitted • for determination was whether the conviction was erroneous in point of law. Sir John Findlay, in opening, submitted that this production or surrender of tho ticket was for the purpose of ascertaining whether- the date of Iho ticket had expired, and not, as in the case of an ordinary ticket, to see if the passenger had paid his fare. There v.aa not here the least element of travelling without the payment of the fare or to in any way defraud the,council. Appellant had on frequent- occasions before travelled without tho family ticket, aud had never before been asked for it, and in consequence had been induced by this practice to assume that season tickets would not be asked for. Counsel quoted the sections of the Shipping and Seamen Act dealing with fares and passengers. A fare was for tho passage by a definite steamer for a definite voyage, and Ihere were certain offences which gave the shipowner lights of refusal. A man who was drunk and disorderly on board could be put" ashore and the amount of his fare refunded. "Supposing," paid counsel, "a season ticket holder on the Eastbourne ferry service was 'drunk ana disorderly, how much of his fare could be returned to him?" All the sections in the Act, counsel contended, had reference to a definite trip of a definite vessel, and did not apply to a general ticketrwheveby tlu holder might travel on any shiii of. the company at any time, and hjs family also might do the same on the same .ticket. Sir John Findlay quoted numero.'.is decisions in support of his. contentions, and pointed- out that in circumstances like thoso in the case it would bo impossible to avoid conviction. A •family ticket' was issued to husband, wife and children, and only one ticket was issued to the family. It was a license to tho holder and his family to travel by every vessel of tho company. Supposing the son took the ticket and travelled by oiio steamer and the father followed on a subsequent steamer, ho would bo without a ticket, because the son had it in his possession, and there was.only one ticket for tho whole family. How eould the father produce the ticket? 'Iho family ticket was a general license tor the members of the family to travel on tho' ferry steamers and not a ticket that could lie produced at any timo by any membor of the family. Tho aim. of the Act was to punish those who- attempted to evade payment of fares, but in (his case tho faro bad-been paid, and that tho appellant was unable to produce the ticket was not his fault. Mr. Anderson, for the respondent borough council, contended that a passenger must have a ticket or ho was liable, aud quoted cases to uphold his contention. . . His Honour reserved his decision.