TRANSPORT APPEALS

Evening Star, Issue 23374, 18 September 1939, Page 11

TRANSPORT APPEALS

ACTIONS AGAINST CITY CORPORATION SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT •• SPECIAL OCCASION " INTERPRETED His Honour Mr Justice Smith lias civen his judgment in the actions brought by the Transport .Department against the City Corporation. A senes of informations was laid against the Dunedin City Corporation, alleging that the corporation carried on a passenger service without the authority of a passenger service license granted under Part 11. of the Transport Incensing Act. 19:51. The magistrate dismissed all the informations. Appeals worn brought in two of them—viz., Information No. 1,100, Archer v. the Corporation, and Information No. 1,16-5, Scott v. the Corporation. His Honour said that for carrying on its passenger services the corporation held continuous licenses under section 29 (a) of the Transport Licensing x\ct, 1931, except in the ease of one route, Dunedin-Waipori, on which buses run for only four months in tho year and which was the subject of a “ seasonal ’ license under section 29 fb). Neither of these licenses authorised! tho corporation to carry on any passenger service of the kind shown by the facts proved on the informations. The corporation claimed that it could carry on such a passenger service without a license. It contended that it did not even require a temporary license under section 29 (c) for the reason that, by virtue of section 21 (b) of the Act it was exempted from the necessity of obtaining any passenger service license for a journey of the kind in question.. At the hearing before the magistrate the prosecution admitted that the facts justified the conclusion that in each case the vehicle was a contract vehicle and that the party carried was a private party. Tho question in dispute was whether the occasion was “a special occasion.” That was the solo question which was before the court.

After quoting the evidence given in tlie cases, and dealing at length with the legal aspects. His Honour said: “ Applying the law to the facts of the present appeals, I think on Information No. 1,160 that tlie ordinary reasonable man would not say that the visit of certain members of the city lodges of Oddfellows to the lady lodge in Kaitangata was an occasion of some public note or importance in the locality of Kaitangata, oven though such visits wore infrequent. Tlie evidence does not go as far as that.” Henry Arthur Penny, traveller, of Dunedin, in his evidence, said: “ It was a special occasion both for us visiting and for the Kaitangata people who were receiving us.” His Honour said he thought the appeal must ho allowed. Continuing his judgment, His Honour said ; “ On Information No. 1.165 it may bo doubted whether a tour of 15 days was an ‘ occasion ’ at all, but apart from that consideration I do not think that the ordinary reasonable man would say that the visit of a party of young people confined to the boys’ and'girls' Bible classes of a particular church to another church gathering in Nelson was an occasion of some public note or importance in the locality of Nelson, even though it was the only one of that kind that had ever taken place. Tlie evidence is simply that the visit was special to the party which went and that it was a great thing for the Nelson church people to have the Dunedin people visiting them and taking part in their services. I think the appeal must be allowed.”

The informations were accordingly remitted to tlie Magistrate’s Court to bo further dealt with in accordance with the effect of the judgment. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant £lO 10s costs.

At the hearing in the Supreme Court Air F. B. Adams appeared for tho appellant and Mr A. N. Haggitt for the respondent.