BUS COMPANY FINED.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 297, 18 July 1929, Page 4

BUS COMPANY FINED.

ILLEGAL USE OF ROAD. **

Fine of £lO and Costs.

At the July sitting of the Putaruru Magistrate's Court on Thurs-

day, belore air. 8. L. Paterson, S.M.. tne traffic inspector of tne Matamata

County Counn'J. E. W. Jordan (Mr. DaUnnore) proceeded against the Itotorua Bus Company (Mr. Davys, Rotorua), changing them that on the 18th of March on that part of the No. 18 main highway being the road from the junction of the Okoroire— Taupo road; such road being classified in the fifth-class under the Motor Lorry Regulations, they did operate a motor lorry, the weight of which exceeded the maximum, i weight. A second charge of failing to exhibit the unladen weight of the vehicle was entered. Ernest William Jordan, traffic inspector, gave evidence to the effect 1 that he was on duty on a portion of the road mentioned in the charge on the date in question. E. Shaw, of Tirau, was with him. Witness saw an omnibus owned by the defendant company and stopped it. The bus was overweight. There were 13 passengers on board. Fourteen passengers under the regulations weigh, nearly a ton. The load carried ex- 1 ceeded the 21 tons allowed. He ha<H told the driver he should not be on - that particular road, and he had given one other driver a similar warning. He had seen the same bus last Tuesday, when it had the unladen weight inscribed on .it. With passengers it would have weighed just under four tons. .. Edgar Shaw, who was iHth the inspector on the date of the charge, corroborated the evidence of the witness. t. >»1 David Ford, a traffic inspector, of Rotorua, said that he weighed the bus in question, which was three tons unladen weight. After correspondence from the de- ■, fendant company to the Matamata i County Council had been read, r Maurice Edward Fitzgerald, engineer to the above council, stated that - his council was unable to accede to [ the request that the company should i be allowed to use this road. The > road was finally classified at the end ; of December. In addition to the l Gazette notice the classification was . advertised in the Rotorua Chronicle, s and notice boards had been erected. ; Tn wet weather the road was practic- , 1 ally impassable. The whole ccuntry~ » including Rotorua, had agitated for 1 this road. Rotorua contributed £IOOO

and the main highways had fouo* the balance. The witness then <& tailed the metal used, the road being intended for tourists as an access to Rotorua. As soon as it was improved it was used by heavy traffic ‘ which rapidly cut the road up, and caused the metal to disappear. To Mr. Davys, the witness said that he was aware that there was a considerable agitation as to the classification. ' ' f This closed the case for the Matamata County Council, Mr. Davys suggested that it was not the company that should have i been charged, but the driver. Mr. Davys referred to the word “ operate ” as used in thq, regulations, suggesting this clearly meant the driver. The Magistrate remarked that if fh's were so then it would be impossible for a company to operate. Mr. Davys submitted that there was no evidence before the court to show that a servant was acting with the authority of the company. The Magistrate held that there was strong evidence in this respect, as instanced by the advertisement. Mr. Dellamore stated that if Mr. Davys arguments were sound, then 4 the company would be above the law. Mr. Davys: Not necessarily so. The Magistrate, Mr. Paterson, said that he had no douht that a conviction should be entered. It was clear that the driver was acting under instructions, and the company knew that they were breaking the regulations. He would be justified in inflicting the maximum penalty, but for the fact that others were using the road that should not. This apparently was the start vof a campaign to prevent the illegal use of the road. He would halve the maximum penalty and fine the defendant £lO, together with nitness’ expenses £1 19s. Solicitor’s fee £2 2s was also allowed. On the s'V'ond chn-o- e ]tr r n n entered a plea of guilty. stating that it was an oversight since rPT r, p( J)V(f. He asked the Magistrate to take into consideration the fact that the cornoajw had to nav £1 to have the inspector brought from Rotorua to nrove the weight or -i. p hns. The Magistrate ordered the rte- ' f “ndant to nay court costs 10s and the solicitor’s fee £1 l a on the charge. ♦* . » . t . , j*;,* & tjJ