“Interference With Rights of Others”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 167, 5 October 1927, Page 9

“Interference With Rights of Others”

CITY BY-LAW ATTACKED COMMUNITY BUS APPEAL “The by-law is unreasonable because it is offensive, oppressive and gratuitous interference with the rights of others.” CPHIS was the contention of Mr* JA F. W. Dickson, who appeared for P’Arcy Harold Ritter, of the Dominion Road Community Motors, in an appeal against a decision of Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., before Mr, Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. His Honour reserved hjs decision. The question at issue was the *egat position of community cars. In his decision the magistrate held that the appellant’s motor-cars should be licensed as omnibuses. The effect of this was to make community -ars illegal, and the decision was disputed on the ground of fact and law. Mr. J. Stanton, for the City Council, said that the defence in the lower court was that the prosecution could not suc - ceed because one of the provisions of the by-law was unreasonable. He would submit that even if the provision was unreasonable the prosecution prosecution w ould succeed. George Robert Hogan, chief traffic inspector of the Auckland City Council, said the motor-car in question was not licensed ns an omnibus under the licence at all. A motor-car cou’d nr : be registered as an omnibus under the City Council by-law. There was nothing in the by-laws to provide for motor-cars plying for hire for separate fares. “CARS CAUSE CONGESTION” From a public point of view, said witness, it was undesirable to licence a motor-car which could not comp’y with the conditions. He was satisfied that only omnibuses should be licensed for hire for separate fares. The regulations were based on recent experience in Australia. There were about 40 or 50 community cars running In Auckland at present, and these had caused great congestion of tra.'fic at rush hours. “It is manifestly unjust and is r ultra vires,” said Mr. Dickson, | commencing his argument on the by-law. j It prevented instead of regulated traffic, and it was not a regulation bijt an absolute prohibition of a man’y right to trade. The council in this case had not gone Into the question of a motor-vehicle plying for hire. Ho contended that it was a trade or business they were carrying on and the council could not absolutely prohibit themCOUNCIL'S POWER “The council has legal power of defining, licensing and regulating the conduct of carriers of persons or good* for hire,” said Mr. Stanton. “And I submit that the conviction must be sustained without reference to the L reasonableness or otherwise of the pro--7 visions defining the omnibus.” I The appellant could not treat Ihe . ruling of the council as a nullity. The 3 appellant had never applied for a licence or tendered a fee or produced his vehicles for Inspection. The onus of proof rested on the persons attacking the by-law. No evidence bad | been given as to the reasonableness I of the by-law except that of Mr. Hogan, who said it was reasonable.