AN IMPORTANT CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1930, Page 7

AN IMPORTANT CASE

ACTION BY THE RAILWAY

DEPARTMENT

NAPIER, Sep. 29. , <A' case* brought by the Railway De* ipartment, involving a Napier-Hastings taxi-cab service run in competition with railway buses, was heard by At l A. M. Mowlem, S.M., this morning, when Malcolm M’lntosh. Taylor was charged "that, being the owner of a motor-cab registered by the Napier Borough Council, as a motor-cab he did on August sth, 1930, ply for hire with Buch vehicle as* a 1 borough omnibus, such , vehicle -not being licensed so to ply. ■" • Mr H. B. Lusk stated that the prosecution .had been brought because it was thodght that unfair competition was being caused by the running, ol these cars, which were merely subject to taxi-cab taxes and not to the omnibuses. The service referred to was really a pirate service, which was causing a heavy loss to the omnibuses seivico on the route. . Evidence would be brought to show that the service was being carried on in direct contravention to the borough by-laws. Alexander Miller. Oliver, borough inspector of motor vehicles, stated that the license issued in respect to defendant’s car was for a motor-cab to carry four passengers. Other licenses were' granted at the same time to othei members of the service. Application had been made for permission to carry six passengers under the taxi license, This was refused and subsequently application was made just tor taxi licenses, which were granted. At no time had the borough approved of a timetable for a service. .

* Cross-examined, witness stated that these proceedings wore lodged by the New Zealand Government Railways Department, not- by the' council. This was aiii unusual; proceeding. Defendant Had run on a license granted during 1929 and the license had been renewed this year-in May. Further cross-examined, witness stated' that!all-service cars leaving Napier daily f^r;.various parts of the country were licensed under the same licenses as fdr the • Niipier-Hastings service. Sopie pf ; these were used, for taxi work as weijf. f vThe motor-cab . licenses was the Qhly£li6ense;/isaued over the whole of the .Dominion. v" '. r y In answer* to his Worship, witness stated •tliai tire Napier-Hdstings service was exceeding the allowances of the license)by driving on a.set route to a time-table'at separate fares. For Mr Rogers suggested that the by-law dealing with die matter- was'invalid. He produced a.

judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Ostler.’ Qn'a .acse in which the question oflicenses; was involved. In this his Honour • had stated that the by-law was unreasonable *nd was 'nofc strictly enforced by the. ftbthbntieiii'y ■ This fact alone was suffi. dent io..sbpw: that the by-law in quest. ,tion was unreasonable. Mr Rogers submitted that the Na-

pier Borough Council, realising it had no license to meet the exact case, I granted a certain license and also a renewal of the license, at the time knowing full well the nature of the service being carried on at the time. No prosecutions had been instituted by the council and he suggested that the action of that body had been reasonable in allowing the use of the license which most nearly applied. Mr Lusk contended that the present case was very different from ue one quoted by counsel for the defence. His Honour’s decision had been that it was'not a fair thing that service cars should he foreed to comply with omnibus rules. In this case there were motor-cabs trading as omnibuses without an omnibus license. He contended that no one could suggest that these were service cars, which were cars used for long-distance trips. His Worship reserved his decision.