MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 30 August 1932, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ALLEGED BREACHES. *

CHARGES AT GREYMOUTH.

GREYMOUTH, Aug. ,30.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday •before Mr W. Meldrum, IS.M,, charged that on -August 10th- at Coal Creels? they did operate heavy motor vehicles .'on *, the Westport-Greymouth road }; licensed for the carriage of passengeis, and carrying greater number of passengers, than such vehicles were licensed to carry, - under, the i. heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations, 1932, several Greymouth motor bus proprietors pleaded not guilty. Defendants were, dames Kennedy, Herbert MoGlashnn, Dudley 'Pollard and Kennedy Bros., and Reginald Stephen Weils. ’ V The informations were laid by the Traffic Inspector,, and Mr T. Brosnap apeared for Janie® and . John Kennedy, and Pollard and Kennedy Bros,,' McGlashan and Wells conducted their own defence. •- p

John Henry Clarke, Traffic Inspector, employed by the Main Highways .Board Mated that on August 10th, he was on duty at Wingham Park. -Defendant, James Kennedy arrived with, a registered bus at the Park gate®. When the bus stopped, witness counted .28. passengers disembarking, a driver and Conductor, making a total of 30. The bus wa® licensed to: carry only 21 passengers including the driver , - Thd fee paid for 20 persons amounted to £8 18s 6d. When applying for pas" senger service license,defendant bpplied for a certificate for seated, and standing "passengers,,. In March Ken-nedy-Bros were advised by an ntithnr:ised: officer for the district that ; the • machine was fit to carry 21 seated and 7 standing passengers, and the drjver, making a total of 29. If they desired to carry standing passenger? the fee would be £l2 6s 6d. ~ d

To Mr Brosnan : August 10th ' was the afternoon on which the English League-tegm played the West Coast T|ie attendance at the Park numberei 1 botwoap 2000 . and 3000. . Thera was nothing unsafe in’ 30 jiqssengers beqjg aboard. Witeness oyrunted the pa,sj|ngers at 2.30 p.m. 'He was proceeding under the Heavy .Traffic Liceij%N Which was applicable .to a • vehicle pp«* eratipg in. any, part of . New Zealand; fei was not so much concerned with, the overloading, as in respect to the fees paid. He had issued warnings tor bus proprietors, about overloading ' some threfe. weeks ago. • ,On a previous occasion he had noticed overloading Vt Wingham Park. On August. 10th the biggest number of people at th/. fdotball match traveled by , private ear. Pollard’s bus carried a total cf 29 paisseiigers. The fee for 20 passengers as applied for by .Pollard, amounted to £6 7s 6d andihad,he-applied for, a license to carry 29 -. passenger®; the fee would be considerable. He was on the near, side of 'both Kennedy and Pollard!s busses, whseu he,counted thy. .uassengers, jr ,

Witness- pointed out that any evasion -of fogs by motor Ims proprietors? wouldv defeat local bodies of monies duo to them- through the'- actual number of. passengers carried; ■ - •The .Magistrate stated that that was a matter for the local bodies, should they desire to take proceedings themselves/-- ; • '. [ Wiliam Kennedy, motor bus proprietor* stated.'that the Inspector had apijoached bimj a(nd -. warned witness •that if he caught any driver overloading he would prosecute. 1 Witness- did • not.,; know there had been any overloading;.; 'the r-first he knew! of -Such, -being son receipt of i the -summons; A seasonal service, -was conducted •tc VVingham Bark. The average, number carried on the buses totalled 14 or 15. :A license had not been obtained for standing passengers, as the certificate showed only "seating passengers.” Op ordinary football days the number of passengers carried would average only six.- • Sy ' \ ; -v.

To - the Inspector: No ? mentioh was made -on the license of seated passengers.. -He- - would say the Inspector -was wrong, jf he stated ; .that witness himself had carried an overload. Witness admitted that packed buses had beeh driven on occasions, but not siricr the Warning had been issued. Dudley Pollard, motor bus driver stated that when he was about to leave town for Wingham Park or August 'loth, there were 17 persons in the hus, but others ‘‘climbed aboard” as the bus started. He. did not know at the time, how many passengers there were. The Inspector, counted the passengers as they- alighted at Wingham Park. ‘On the regular run to Karoro, there was no overloading of the buses.. j '' lb the Inspector: Witness acepted the;:responsibility of overloading. Hb. did not mention it to his firm. James Kennedy, motor bus driver, stated that he drove a bus to Wingham Park on,Auguste IQ. . .The. bur could hate /.carried, its 30 passengers with safety. : He ; wfts informed by hi brother that the Inspector had issued a warning against overloading.. Mr Brosnau submitted .that the in* formation “against the firm should b? dismissed, as .the proprietors did, not have. anv. .knowledge .of . oyer,loading. TWore .they could permit the buses to, be operated with an overload; they must have knowledge that a breach was -being ..Unless they

had that kijowledge, then..they were not permitting it. So far as , the. drivers werte Concerned, counsel! pointed out that the legislation was new to the people, who had t 0... “fyel their way,” and Cases in. the Dominion wete all " helping them to moret clearly understand the Act. He submitted that the; Highways .Transputt licences were issued, not td catch isolated breaches such as before the Court, bpt to protect,. the roads , frpm delibeiate overloading. There must be a deliberate attempt ip evade payment of fees by running, unlicensed .services. It was obvious that there was no such intent on. .the pqr.t of -the dor fondants.' He submitted : that the defendants had acted tightly ip taking the people to the Park providing that they did so with safety, as on August io. " ; ■

The Inspector submitted th{#t there, had been a breach of the regulations so far as they covered the carriage ,pi passengers. He did jlflt admit that ,a bus could carry 22 seated passengers, and seven standing passengers, simply because it liad a certificate of mechan* ical fitness to carry that number. A fee of £3 wrts .paid for the certifinatO’ pf fitness. If a bus licenced undej-, the Heavy Motor. Vehicles Actj. -to cairy 21 passengers,., carried 22. seated, and : 7 standing passengers then a breach was Committed, A bus, was entitled to carry onty the number of passengers for Which fees had been paid, which, in the two cases, ./ere 20 and, respectively. The legislation was not new for it Juul been in. operation since .March, 1927. ; fact ■ that defendant had applied for Imth seating and standing , capacity, under, the Transport'. Act, indicated the fact that they intended to carry passengers when offering- He submitted that they should pajp fpr tb e higher license., , He. had received complaints of over-load-ing on the. Greymonth-South Beach rdute by defendant’s buses, but no action had been taken by him-so far. The idea ih prosecuting wns to .impress upon those operating buses, that it;is. nece'ssairy to jay extrd fees if they carry morel than the licensed number of passengers. The Magistrate .reserved judgment.

OTHER. CHARGES,

In the case . against. .Herbert McGlashan, ihe Inspector stated, that on the arrival of defendant’s ...at Wingham Patk,! he. counted 38, passengers alighting, The foes paid on. the. particular . vehicle, for ,<>ne quarter, amounted to 18s. Had defend" ant paid the fees due for parrying 38. passengers, the total would have amounted to. £lp 18s 9, That was the maximum Re so far as. par?engers were concerned.-: .Witness counted 35 admits? five hoys, and a driver, but he counted two boys as being .equal to one adult..- ' i ' To defendant: Witness warned defendant against carrying standing,pas-i senders; " The fact that Mefendahf had a temporary license to, carry 28 seated afid nine standing passengers, did-,not •jbjme under the jurisdiction pf,witness. That whs a Transport Board hcensCand witness , was proceeding und.er the Heavy Traffic regulations, Gn'j on one; occasion had defendant ha.fi a. temporary license issued to nim. Defendant :• Do you know that in this towh, ait the present time, mot, r buses are being operated witboi.:t:a ’ .-en.se? The S.‘M.: You need not answer that question. . That has nothing to do with this'case, .’ v

Wituefis admitted that U- lenJant had raised no objae'im t.o p.r.y»ng the fees, if it was pr. • u llu;t leu lily he had a right to do M.

Herbert. . McGJashan, defendant* stated that he did not carry the number of adult passengers said to hav^ been cairied by the Inspector. Wit ness counted his passengers . which numbered 21 adults and eight children. He applied 'to the Public Works Department for a' temporary license to carry 28 seated and 9 standing passengers.- Witness had been preyiouriy refused a • -temporary license as Kennedy Bros, were operating on the route,- and considered their transport sufficient. He abtained a /.temporary license, by paying 2<s. fid -into the Consolidated Fund, which entitled him to ply for bine on -August 10. There was .no deliberate attempt to evade the regulatibnSj °n the part of . witness. Decision was reserved.,■

j ANOTHER CHARGE

Reginald Stephen, Wells . pleaded guilty to a similar charge. , The Inspector .stated: that defendaut had arrived at Wingham Park with a registered bus,. earryipg 28 passengers and a .driver,.. The jbeavy traffic 'lliceaiee he had .entitled defendant to carry only 2Q passengers, including the driver. The fee paid amounted to £6 7s 6d, but the numberf carried .deui andiedi, a fee; of £lO 12s 6d. The particular bus, JioWever, was ; not mechanically fitted, tp parry more than 21 seated., .and +*>’*36 standing passengers, and a driver.

iiiefendant stated that he wouild plead guilty, as -he-, counted the number, .of his passengers; ~ >

The Magistrate aaid that : as -be was •esprving judgment in the other similar- cases, lie would suggest that deVndnat withdraw his plea of .guilty, and make it a plea of not guilty. This defendant agreed to, and decision was reserved.