AN UNUSUAL PROSECUTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4532, 18 November 1930, Page 2

AN UNUSUAL PROSECUTION.

SHAKING CAR EXPENSES. New Plymouth, Nov. 14. The f|uestion of the legal standing of a car-ownetr who carries passengers on the basis of their sharing expenses was argued in the Magistrate’s Court, when Elsie Lilian Peters was charged that, being the owner of a motor-ear, she unlawfully permitted it to he used foir'a different purpose than that for which it should (lie/ used, the full amount of insurance premium payable in respect thereof not having been paid. Defendant's husband had, on a trip to Wellington liefotv the last Test- match, taken three passengers, who had shared expenses. The point at issue was whether by his doing so the car came under the classification of “|pu[blic vehicle” within the meaning of the Act, in which instance a heavier insurance premium would be payable. Decision was reserved.

'Senior-Sergeant Meßorie stated that the prosecution was in the nature of a test case. Before the trip Peters inserted an advertisement in. a newspaper that seats were, available to 'Wellington and back. When seen by the police he admitted having taken three people.

Eor the defendant, Mr. A. A. f' Bennett said it was common knowledge that advertisements were often inserted in newspapers asking for passengers on a trip and stating that they were to share expenses. If it. was a breach, it was an innocent one as far as the advertisers were concerned, or they would not advertise. The . most that could he said iu this in- *L stance was that on an isolated oc-

casion to reduce expense and provide company for him, the defendant. had permitted her husband to carry passengers. The mere fact that a contribution toward expenses was accepted did not, he submitted, make the car a “public vehicle.” It was certainly not plying for hire. The case was very dissimilar from one recently heard in Auckland, where the defendant had been making a practice of carrying passengers every week for £T 1.0/-, said counsel. If Peters were guilty, nobody would legally be able to take a friend for a trip and allow the friend to share expenses.

Mr. 11. W. Tate, S.M., said that lie rather thought that section of the Act was framed for the prolection of individuals. The question of damage to passengers in the event of accident was also involved.