EVADING RAILWAY FARE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 154, 25 March 1920, Page 5

EVADING RAILWAY FARE

YOUNG MAN FINED. Mr. E. Page, S.M., presided over the sitting of the Magistrate's Court, Petone, yesterday, when three breaches of the railway by-laws, 4, 6, and 10, were brought against a young man, H. S. Prebble, for whom Mr. Kirk appeared. Ho was charged (1) With travelling in .1' railway carriage' between Lower Hutt and Petone without paying the fare; (2) being the holder of a season ticket from Belmont to Petone he failed to deliver same when required to do so; aud (3) having paid the fare for a certain distance, did knowingly proceed beyond 6uch distance without paying the added fare.

Senior Sergeant Bird prosecuted. T. Cox (assistant guard), said it was customary to go through the train between Lower Hutt and Petone and ask for tickets to Petone, lint not to examine all tickets. On the Wednesday previous to the date of prosecution he had received no response from the rear carriage, but at Petone some one alighted from this enrriage. In consequence a close examination was made, and- later tlie same thing occurred. On being approached for a ticket after having alighted at Petone defendant said he had a season ticket, and 'produced one from Belmont to Lower Hutt. He paid • the difference (lid.) without question. P. W. Qutnn (guard) said that with the assistant he arranged on the date in question to make a special examination of the rear carriage of the train to find who had been getting off at Petone. He asked for' Petone tickets at each seat, but received no response, and the porter also went through the carriage for the same purpose. Edward William Ben-ill (inspector) said defendant could have done one of two things—either got out and procured a ticket at Lower Hutt or notified the guard when he came tVough and paid the difference. Tt was impossible for the guards to inspect all tickets for the short run between Hutt and Petone. and thev had to rely on the honesty, of the public". Vwien approached about tho matter, ho paid, Prebble under pressure admitted hnving done it on several previous occasions. l)ii t said he paid the faro when asked by the guard. The action was taken as a deterrent to others tempted to do this sort of thing, which was easy. 1 Ho was of opinion that defendant tried to evade payment. H. S. Prebble, in defence, said he took the season ticket to Lower-Hutt instead 01 Petone, where he is employed because he was fond of walking, and as a rule walked frqm Lower Hutt to Petone tor exercise. He made no admissions to the inspector when approached bv him, and did not attempt to evade payment. We was in conversation with a friend when the guard went through. Tho inspectors had told him he had done this sort of thing several times before, but no had only admitted doing it once. In his opinion ho was not called upon to ™.™ gwvrd out and pay him if ho Jailed to come throush the carriage. His Worship, in convicting defendant on Hie last charge (under section 10), said jt wemed evident that lie had on this particular occasion attempted to got Ihis journey without payment. Tho custom of issuing tickets on the train for overriding did not prevent the Department proceeding nra.inst those doing so if it ■wished to enforce the by-l.iw. Defendant would he fined .05, with costs amounting to ,C 2 55.. the amount to ho paid at the rate of .£1 per week.