THE TOLL QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 4115, 5 May 1876, Page 3

THE TOLL QUESTION.

At Tokomairiro on Tuesday, before Mr Maitland, R.M., S. Bnshel, carrier, was charged on the information of Constable Aitchison, “that on the 19th of April, at Waihola Gorge, he did take off two horses from a certain carriage—to wit, a waggon—before having passed through the Waihola Gorge toll-gate, whereby a part of the tolls was evaded—to wit, the payment of four shillings—contrary to the Turnpike Ordinance, 1866, Amendment Ordinance, 1875. Sergeant Smith, who conducted the case for the prosecution, said that for some time past the tolls at Taieri Ferry, Waihola, Tnapeka Junction, and Stoney Creek had been collected by persons appointed by the Government, and were not leased. He had been instructed to collect the tolls, and to otherwise control the toll-keepers in their duties. Since the passing of the amending Ordinance of 1875, it had been found that there was a great deal of evasion going on in consequence of the increased charges for horses drawing waggons and other vehicles when the number exceeded six. He had been instructed by his superior officer to look closoly into the matter, and he had brought the present case. The principal evidence was given by Thomas Frazer, who deposed: “I am toll-collector at Waihola. On the 19th of .April a waggon belonging to Mr Bushel passed through the Waihola tollgate. The waggon was then drawn by six horses. The defendant paid me 3s 6d toll money. That was for seven horses—six yoked and one tied behind. If these seven horses had been working in the waggon, the charge would have 1s each under the schedule. When there were only six in the waggon, it was only my duty to demand payment at the lower rate. It was pretty dark when the waggon passed, and it was quite possible I might not have seen one of the horses. The defendant tendered me three shillings and sixpence. He paid me for his own waggon, which went through first, l am sure there was only one horse tied behind Bushel’s waggon.” Mr Taylor contended that there conld not be a conviction under the information before the Court. The Act gave no interpretation of the meaning of the word “ carriage,” and it could not be assumed in the information that carriage meant waggon. It must be well known to the Court and the public that there had been a great deal of complaint with regard to the increase of the toll charges on waggons, and only a few days ago a deputation from Palmerston waited on his Honor the Superintendent on the subject. There seemed to be an impression that this great increase in the rates had been made under some misapprehension. The intention must have been to have imposed a charge of a shilling for every horse over a specified number. If a waggoner had six horses they cost him sixpence each at a toll, but if he had ten horses the charge was two shillings each, or LI altogether. It conld never have been intended to make the tolls so heavy as this. The intention must have been simply to increase the rates for the extra horaes. He would rest his case upon the point that a waggon was not a carriage within the legal construction of the Ordinance.—Mr Maitland said he would give his decision on Tuesday next, as he wished to look into the matter.—There were three other similar cases to be heard, but it was agreed that they should be decided by the decision of the Bench on the case that had been before the Court.— ‘ Bruce Herald.’