"PIRATE" CARS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 86, 8 October 1931, Page 14

"PIRATE" CARS

ON HUTT ROAD SEVERAL CASES FAIL OTHERS ESTABLISHED Stating that in his opinion the Wellington City Council's bylaw relating to the licensing of passenger -vehicles ■was inapplicable to the course of business of George Benny, driver of a seven-seater motor-car operating between Petone and Wellington, Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., in a reserved judgment'delivered this afternoon, dismissed an information laid by the council charging him with acting aa the driver of an unlicensed passollger carriage. Other similar charges brought by the City Council against Morey (tAvo charges), - Hagan, Smith (two charges), Morris (two charges), and Neale were dismissed. In another case, however, brought by the Eailway Department under the Petone Borough Council bylaws, the Magistrate entered a conviction against Benny and another man, Cyril Victor Smith, for owning omnibuses not licensed in accordance with the regulations. Judgment was also delivered by Mr. Woodward in the case of William Large, who wag charged with operating a motor omnibus service between Wellington and Khandallah not in conformity with terms of a licence granted under the Motor Omnibus. Traffic Act, 1926, and also with acting as the driver of an unlicensed passenger carriage. The Magistrate dismissed the first charge, as he thought the Act was not intended to refer to a five-«eater motor-car. With regard to the second, charge, Mr. Woodward said he was satisfied that the car was being used as a stage carriage, and entered a conviction against the driver. Large was also convicted on a charge of plying for hire near the corner of Bowen street and Lambton quay at a place not appointed as a stand for licensed vehicles of the class to which the defendant's belonged. CITY COUNCIL CASE. The facts of the case brought by the City Council were that Benny was the driver of a ear licensed v a cab under the Petone Borough bylaws, but not licensed under the Wellington City bylaws. The defendant was shown to have run his car between Wellington and Petone carrying passengers both ways. At Wellington he started from a privately-owned yard, but he picked up passengers at different points in the city. A considerable part of his run lay more than five miles beyond the Petone Borough boundary, and the whole of it lay within ten piles of the Chief Post Office in the city.,,

"There is no evidence as to the situation of the garage of the vehicle in question," said Mr. Woodward. "As to the plying for hire, the evidence is that persons are carried both days between the "City and Petone. It may, I think, be assumed that they are carried for hire, but I cannot assume as against the defendant that there was a plying for hire in the city. The sign carried on the vehicle is 'Petone to Wellington.' It is licensed as a taxicab in Petone. It is highly probable that by far-the largest part of the defendant's business on this run consists of bringing residents of Petone from Petone to their work or pleasure in the city and in taking them back to Petone, and so far as' the evidence goes it is possible that that is the whole of his business on this run. No evidence was given in the present case as to" whether the contract for carriage is made or whether it is a contract for a single or return journey, or that the defendant carries from the city to Petone other passengers than such as, he has himself brought to the city. . . . I cannot assume against the defendant that any contract is made in the city." Referring to the question as to whether, if there was no plying for hire in the city, the vehicle could be required to have a licence to ply for hire under the city bylaws, Mr. Woodward said that as it was not proved that the defendant had been plying for hire in Wellington the bylaw could' not be applied to the defendant's* business. THE SECOND CASE. The second case brought against Bonny centred mainly on the question of the definition of the word "omnibus," Mr. G. G. G. .Watson, who appeared for -the defendant, contending that the vehicle was. not an omnibus, and that if the vehicle was an omnibus the clause requiring it to be licensed was ultra vires and void as being an •attempt to use a licensing system as a means of imposing taxation. The Magistrate held that there were no constructional requirements for omnibuses in the Petone bylaws to afford a ground for suggesting that such a vehicle as the defendant's would not reasonably come within the category of omnibus. The conclusioji that he came to was that the vehicle was an omnibus as defined by the bylaw. After quoting , certain legal • decisions; Mr. Woodward said he had come to the conclusion that the bylaw in question was valid. KHANDALLAH SERVICE. In the case against William Large, •She defendant was shown to have driven a five-seater car, licensed as a hackney carriage by the City Council, with passengers from Khandallah and Ngaio into the city. The car was not licensed as an omnibus, and the defendant had not received authority to establish an omnibus service. During the hearinjf of the case there was considerable argument as to the exact meaning of the words "motor omnibus" and "motor omnibus service." In his judgment Mr. Woodward said that to class the defendant's vehicle as an omnibus would be to run conn-; ter to the popular understanding in which the idea of largo size was firmly connected with the notion of omnibus. Mr. Woodward thought that the Act did not refer, and was not intended to refer, to such a class of vehicle as the defendant's, and he, dismissed the first charge. . Dealing with the second charge relating to Large driving a vehicle not licensed as a stage carriage, Mr. Woodward said he was satisfied that the car was used as a stage carriage and required to be licensed as such. At the hearing of the various cases Mr. J. O'Shea and Mr. F. C. Spratt appeared for the City Council, Mr. P. S. K. Maeassey for the Railway Department, and Messrs G. G. G. Watson and W. P. Shorland for the" defendants.