NEW MOTOR ACT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5485, 9 October 1929, Page 2

NEW MOTOR ACT.

HIKUTAIA RESIDENT INVOLVED. CHARGE FAILS. At the Paeroa Police Court on Monday, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., Mrs A. Rehm, for whom Mr C. N. O’Neill appeared, was charged with plying for hire a motor car on which the full amount of insurance rate had not been paid, in breach of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (third party risk) Act, 1928. Two other charges, involving the payment of a lower annual license fee in respect of the same car than that fixed by the regulations for a car plying for hire, were withdrawn by the police, it having been ascertained that the annual license fee in respect to a private car was the same as that required fox* a car of the description of defendant’s car, even though plied for hire.

Sergeant Calwell, for the police, said the Act under which the charges were brought only came into force this year, and he did not know of any action taken before, at any rate not in this district.

The magistrate said he knew of one case.

Mrs Jeff Murdock, Hikutaia, in answer to Sergeant Calwell, said she had ridden once or twice in defendant’s car. Leslie Rehm, defendant’s son, drove. She paid nd fare, but had given young Rehm Is 6d for himself. On the one occasion she distinctly remembered that Hayes, the taxi man, was away on an engagement, and as she urgently wanted to get an elderly sick woman to hospital she asked the Rhems to oblige her. She was not sure of the date, but it was some two or three weeks before she had been interviewed by the police on the subject. In answer to Mr O’Neill witness said that Leslie Rehm had never asked for any fare. F. Brown, Hikutaia, said he had ridden once in the car. He could not get Hayes on the day in question, so his employers rang Rehm for. him and asked them to take witness to the railway station, as he wished to take his child to a doctor. That was towards the end of August. He had paid no fare to young. Rehm, and no fare had been asked. He gave the boy 5s for himself. The ordinary fare was 9s.

Leslie Rehm, in answer to Sergeant Calwell, said he was licensed to drive a car, and drove his mother’s. He had driven Mrs Murdock to the station once or twice. Once she may have given him Is for himself. He had also driven Brown once. His mother was the owner of the car. To Mr O’Neill witness said he had never asked for money. None of the money he received was handed to his mother. What he had been given he might have just bought cigarettes with.

Sergeant Calwell said he was not sure whether the regulation fees had been published. The only place to get them was on a form from the post office proving what class of car paid a higher’ insurance rate. Insurance amounting to £7 10s was payable in the event of a car being used for carrying fare-paying passengers. They were classed according to uses. A private car paid £l. The large difference in the amounts was on account of the thirdy party risk. The magistrate stated that evidence of this would have to be produced, so the point was reserved until the arrival of the document from the post office.

Mr O’Neill pointed out that insurance was now also effected when taking out a private license.

Sergeant Calwell stated that the object of the prosecution was to prove that the act of carrying passengers was liable for larger payment. The magistrate concurred, saying that anyone carrying passengers without a license was liable to a fine of £lO a day. Mr 'O’Neill submitted that the charge must fail. Hikutaia was growing rapidly, and there was a keen demand for taxis. There’ was only one taxi there. Defendant’s husband was a grocer, and out of his kindly disposition accommodated his customers on occasion with his car. The car had taken Mrs Murdock and Mr Brown. Brown had certainly paid the boy ss, but both said it had not been asked for ; it was not considered in the light of a fare. In both cases the taxi owner was away, and both were urgent calls which Rehm could not in fairness turn down. Brown, like all reasonable men, did not like to be under an obligation, and had given the boy ss. The boy did not ask for the money. The passage of money on Mrs Murdock’s and Brown’s part was purely voluntary, and the money had never reached the ownei’ of the car. If the boy had asked for money, then it would have come under the Act. Any such evidence was entirely lacking. Mr O’Neill referred the magistrate to the section of the Act dealing with the liability of the insurance company under the contract of insurance. Any person riding in a motor-car not being a vehicle plying for hire had no claim under such insurance if injured. The passenger in a vehicle plied for hire, however, would have a claim for insurance. This claim was limited to £2OOO in respect to any one passenger and £20,000 for ail claims made by or in respect of all the passengers of one vehicle. This accounted for the difference of £1 charged for insurance of private cars and £7 10s for cars plied for hire. Mr O’Neill submitted that in the event of an accident having occurred to either Mrs Murdock or Mr Brown neither could have established any claim for insurance.

C. Rehm, giving evidence, said in both cases he had been rung up and asked if he would oblige by conveying people to the doctor, as the taxi man was otherwise engaged. Under’ the circumstances he answered certainlyly. He did not even know until several days later that his son had driven them. Mrs Rehm did not drive the car, and did not know it was out. Neither’ witness nor Mrs Rehm had

received moey for any car hire. On one occasion Hayes had rung him up, and asked, as he was otherwise engaged, if he would oblige by taking the district Maori nurse to an urgent case, suggesting that he should send in a bill for the trip. Witness said he drove the nurse half-way to Maratoto and waited there all morning while she attended the case. He then drove her back to the station, where, on entering the train, she told him to send in his bill. He had not done so, and never intended to do so.

In answer to Sergeant Calwell witness said that the car was used for their private affairs, mostly for going to Auckland. It was his wife’s car.

Sergeant Calwell : Your wife’s car, but she doesn’t know much about when it is being used, apparently. Continuing, witness stated that his son had told him Mrs Murdock had given him Is 6d, but did not tell him about Brown until some time later.

The magistrate, in handing down judgment, said there was no evidence that defendant had offended on either date or on any date, and the charge must therefore be dismissed.