SUNDAY FLYING

Hokitika Guardian, 7 September 1929, Page 6

SUNDAY FLYING

,\ TEST CASE AT TIMARU. MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION. TJMARU, Sept. 5. A case in which, William Henry Lett, an aviator, was charged with working at his calling 'by taking passengers for a flight in an aeroplane for payment on Sunday, August- 25, at Washdvke, came before the Magistrate, Mr O. R. Orr Walker, S.M.. at Timaru to-day. Decision was reserved. The case is the first of its kind to be heard in New Zealand, and as there is no provision in the Police Offences Act regarding the flying of these machines for hire, the Magistrate reserved his decision. Lett, who is, business manager of tlm Goodwin-Chichester- Aviation Co., Wellington, and who with another pilot, is making a tour of New Zealand with the object of encouraging) public interest in aviation, was represented by- Mr W. H. Walton. Senior-Sergeant T. Gibson prosecuted. He said that on the -Sunday in question he had visited Wash dyke and had seen defendant take up people for flights over 'Timaru. There were from 400 to 500 people in the landing paddock, which was situated in S'-eadown Settlement.

Counsel for defendant said that both machines were licensed to carry passengers, and had done so in the North Island—in Hamilton, Auckland, Napier, Palmerston North and Foilding. For years Sunday- flying had been going on, and at the Wigram . Aerodrome, Christchurch, Government machines took up passengers on Sunday. This was also the case at- Hamilton, where there was an aviation company. He submitted that there were no grounds for prosecution, as the Police Offences Act did not contain any provision for the carrying of passengers iby ’planes on Sunday. If charges, such as the present one, were to he continued in Timaru, it- meant that a man travelling by air, from say, Christchurch to Dunedin, would be liable to prosecution if the machine passed over Timaru. The Magistrate: That would mean another £5 on the fare. Counsel pointed out that boats were permitted to ply for hire on Sundays. Had defendant’s machine been seaplanes, then apparently all would have been in order. The whole thing savoured of a mid-Victorian prosecution. Aviators had not been in other parts for Sunday flying yet'the local police took action. The Magistrate: Timaru leads and the others follow..’ What is 'tlie difference between an aeroplane flying on a pleasure trip arid a charabanc on a sight-seeing tour? The Senior-Sergeant: The aeroplane creates the greater nuisance. The Magistrate: The charge does not refer to creating a nuisance.

Defendant said that both machines were licensed to carry passengers. had flown in many towns in New Zealand on Sunday. It was . the custom of his . company and of the Hamilton Airways Company to fly on Sundays. The Government aeroplanes at Christchurch also carried passengers on Sundays. Pilots undertaking refresher courses at the Wigram Aerodrome flying solo were permitted to take up passengers. Mr Walton: “’I don’t see that there are any grounds whatever for a prosecution.

The Magistrate: Your client can hardly object to the prosecution. It will at least he a very good advertisement. _ To the Senior-Sergeant witness said that on the Sunday referred to in the charge, the first machine to fly over the town took off at 12.20 p.m. The machines had not flown over the town in the morning, as the airmen had no desire to disturb the church services. The Senior-Sergeant: What about* (the day you were stunting ovei Timaru ? Witness: I was not in that machine. At any rate it flew above the prescribed height. The Magistrate, in reserving his decision,' said that he would have to look into certain points.