EASTBOURNE FERRY Service

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 244, 9 July 1919, Page 5

EASTBOURNE FERRY Service

FAMILY TICKETS MUST BE PRODUCED ON DEMAND

His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman dehveied reserved judgment in tho Supreme Court yesterday morning in the caso of ]). ■ ll.' rindlay, .solicitor, .Wellington, against I). Griffin, of the Eastbourne I'erry Service. The caso was heard on April 4, and was an appeal, from the decision of Mr. L. G. Eeid, S.M. The information alleged that the appellant, ]). M. Findlay, on February 2, 1917,. was travelling on the steamer Cobar from "Wellington' to TJoy's Bay, and when requested to exhibit his steamer, ticket foiled to do so. Mr. Findlay was convicted and discharged, and against this decision he appealed on tho ground that it was erroneous in law. Tho facts as stated by the Magistrate were that it had lieen proved that Findlay was a passenger on the steamer on the dote in question; he was esked to produce lii.9 ticket- and failed to dp so, on tho ground that he was it season ticket holder. It was admitted that he was the holder of a family ticket, nnd frequently travelled without beinff asked to produce it.

It was contended for the appellant that tho production or surrender of tho ticket was for the purpose of ascertaining whether the date of the ticket had expired, nnd not, as in case of an ordinary ticket, to see- if the passenger had paid his fare. Applicant had on frequent occiisions before travelled without the family ticket, and had nevor before been asked for it, and in coiiscjueace had been induced by this practice to assume that season tickets would not be asked for. Appellant was the holder of an annual family ticket, and held n pass which stated on the face of it that it was to 1)0 produced when required, 'Each member of his family was also furnished with a pass.

His Honour said tint it had been argued that in the circumstances there was no "faro for tho ship," sr.d that the words in the statute showed that tho section was iuapplicable save to a case where there was a definite voyage, but in- this case the appellant possessed a license purchased for a lump sum to which the section was applicable. His Ilonour did not think that Hint was tho true construction of the statute. "A person going on board contracts to pay a fare for fliat voyage of that ship -vhen demanded. If he has already done so, as the appellant had, ho shows his ticket and thoro the- matter ends. He need not show it if he prefers to pay a fare. Ho remains under the same obligation whether ho hns purchased exoneration in some other form, as in this case, nnd has, and produces when nsked, the apjvronriate evidence." His Honour, nfler dealing with the provisions of the SJviplliiiK and Seamen Act. 1908, said that it did not make any difference that the pih'cer knew that the appellant held an ■miexpired season ticket. Tho officer was charged by his employer with certain duties, and one of them '-as to see the tickets. .A passenger' was not entitled to make the officer's authority to call for tho ticket depend on the officer's recollection of the data of the issue, or nnythin? personal either to himself or tho officer." Ilia Honour dismissed tho appeal, with £5 ss. costs. At the li»arin«[, Sir .Win i-indlny, K.C.. with him Mr. L. L'K. Edwards, appeared for the appellant, nnd Mr. H. E. Anderson for tho respondent.