DECISION RESERVED

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 74, 18 June 1927, Page 13

DECISION RESERVED

COMMUNITY BUS FIGHT LENGTHY LEGAL ARGUMENT COUNCIL PROSECUTION Some forceful legal arguments were put forward by Mr. J. J. Sullivan, who, with Mr. Hall Skelton, was counsel for the defence in the City Council’s case against the Community Buses, before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., yesterday afternoon. r J'HE council brought 40 charges concerning failure to register and driving without the necessary licences against 13 community bus owners and drivers. In opening the case for the prosecution, Mr. A. H. Johnstone said that the informations had been laid to test the question of whether the buses might run without complying with the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act. He quoted a decision of the Chief Justice, Lord Coleridge, and Mr. Justice Collins, in England in 1893, in a similar case relating to horse-drawn omnibuses and cabs, in which the judges ruled that voluntary contributions did constitute the payment of fares, and that an attempt had been made to evade the Act. COUNSEL’S ARGUMENT Referring to this case, Mr. Sullivan quoted from the Chief Justice’s sum-ming-up, the words of the defendant: “I will place my omnibus at the disposal of the public, if they will put money in the boxes provided.” There was clearly a case of a man charging fares, he argued. There was no such suggestion in the present case. “It must be established that the vehicles were at the disposal of everybody, before it can be allowed that they were plying for hire. This is the meaning of the expression ‘plying for hire,’ ” Mr. Sullivan said. He also submitted that the social club had not carried on a motor omnibus service as defined by the Statutes. “I hardly know, after the mass of verbiage that has been hurled at your Worship, where to begin,” was Mr. Johnstone’s polite reply to the addresses of the opposing counsels.

He proceeded to give his views on the interpretation of the word “fares,” and the questions arising from it. “As long as the passenger pays passage money, he pays a fare,” he argued, “whether the amount is fixed by the hirer or the owner.”

After listening for over three hours to the arguments of all three counsels, the magistrate reserved his decision.