THE COUERT. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 258, 9 January 1873, Page 7

THE COUERT. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq\, R.M., His Worship the Mayor, and Dr. Stewart, J.P. \ Tuesday, Jahtjary 3, 1813. John Chaplin .was charged on^ the information of Sergeant Morton, that he did on the 26th »>f December, :872, allow a greater number of passengers to be conveyed in and upon his coach travelling from Lawrence to Milton, than liis license entitled him to do, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided. Mr.- Taylor appeared on behalf of defendant, (who was not presunt) and pleaded -not guilty. Sergeant Morton stated that on the" morning of December 26, 1872, ha saw Chaplin & Co.'s coach leave the Commercial Hotel, Lawrence. There were seven passengers inside, three on the box beside the driver, and one the raok behind ; there were also two children, one an infant in its mother's arms, on the box, and the other, aged 5 or 6 years, inside. The coach was marked G, and is licensed to carry six passengers in»ide, and one outside. The number the coach is entitled (o carry is marked outside. The coach in question travels between Lawrence and Milton. Witness had previously cautioned defendant's driver against carrying an excessive number of passenger. Cross-examined— There might not be more than nine passengers, but there were more than nine persons in the coach. The Dunstan coach had broken down the previous evening. The passenger on the rack iYiiaTi+ In* «"ni« rtf tVia. oomj-Hjny's servants. This was the casa for the prosecution. Mr. Taylor for the defence, said the case must be dismissed. The prosecution had not proved that the coach in quesrion was a licensed coach, neither was there any evidence to show that Chaplin was the proprietor of the- coach. The fact of Chaplin's name, and the number of passengers the coach was entitled to carry being painted outside the vehicle, was" of no consequence. The police should have given notice to Chaplin to produce his license, and if he did not then do so, should have adduced secondary evidence of ite existence. Under- the circumstances, he contended that the case did not come under the provisions of the Licensed Carriages Ordinance, and therefore the Court could not deal with it. Sergeant Morton said he asked the driver of the coach, Pope, for the license, and was by him informed that it was in Dunedin. Mr. Pyke said Mr. Taylor's arguments were based apon the assumption that defendent had committed a more serious offence than he was then charged with. He could scarcely be given the benefit of such a doubt. Mr. Taylor : Snfficient for, the day is the evil thereof. The passenger on the the rack was clearly not a passenger within the meaning of the Ordinance, as he was a servant of the company. A passenger under the Ordinance, was one who paid for his passage. Mr. Pyke : The Ordinance was passed to prevent "inconvenience and danger " to persons travelling. If Mr. Taylor's interpolation were correct, Cobb & Co. iiiight pack twenty of their servants on a coach, to the " inconvenience and danger " of bona, fide passengers, thereby defeating the object of the Act, Mr. Taylor : The information charged defendant with conveying "passengers," not " persons," in excess of the number he was entitled to do. In the Ordinance the word "persons" and sometimes the word " passengers" were ug^d in the same clause. The clause under which the information was laid was not vory cle,a.tSobut h* was. ofiippiiuon it on|y apydiedij'.o paJßengfcrn-rer-liire". Mr. Pjke-: JJo one expect* to find -consistency in a Provincial ordinance. Mb., Taylor : The case now before the Com*' im not ,'aueh. a. wilful and flagrant broach of the law that the infliction of a fine is called for. . It < wa» an infringement of the letter and not of the' spirit of the law, and was caused by an aqciient over winch; Mr. Chapßn >ad no oohtrol. The fact; ; wa« tha* the up-country coach had. broken'dqyn, and the small coach -placed on-Ae lawxence and Miltou line was the only x>ne -procurable . Ho called A. Armstrong, landlord of the Commercial Hotel, agout for Cobb and Co., who deposed that on flic evening <of -the 25th December, 1872, the Dunstan -coach broke down at Evans flat. The Tolfomairiro coach was sent to bring passengers in. A grooai was ftesnatched. to Tokomaifiro to'bvinar up a coach io go to the Dunstan, so that {he regular coach could i'O to Tokonyairiro. It was found imp<«sible to .get a cosuih from Toko- j mairiro in time to send up-country £he .fcUowiajj -morning, .consequently the

Tokomairiro coach, which is licensed to '- carry 12 passengers, had to be despatched. 'I he small passenger coach arrived in Lawrence about 8 o'clock. There were 9£ passengers in the coach for Tokomairiro oii the morning of the 26th December— * 10 individuals, including two children. There were 3 passengers and ono child on the box with the driver, and 6& inside. Turner, the Tokomairiro agent," was on the rack. Witness was perfectly certain that the number of passengers he stated wbs correct, as he checked the way-bill before the coach started. Cross-examined —There were ojily six adults and a boy inside. Mr. Pyke said the case had been clearly proved. It was .within the knowledge of the Bench that overloading pooches was a very common practice, and it was a very dangerous one. The Ordinance was specially intended to prevent this practice. The inconvenience inflicted up^n passengers — more especially women, by overcrowding, was. an additional reason why it should not be permitted. The fact of the man travelling on the rack ho considered aggravated the offence, as it increased the danger, and the fatal accident that had recemtly taken pl-ice, should act as a cantion to coachdrivers. Regarding the defence set up in the present case, that there was a rush of passengers, and an accident to the up-ccutitry coach. he did not think that it s'l^uVl be considered. Cobb & Co. Iwiii y a,^monopoly of the coaching, should put on better coaches and m°rf; horses. If th?y did so the^e w u'i bo r :>T br^ilc-'to-.vra, and .hero win d ■ o 3V.'-:* ■:■"! ;'.C2 •>■].>. odatiou for trav-lte- I*.1 *. y v.I: J -<r.AI "'0 said in ths favor of defcnJaat — i- i-icr, he was surpripei that thw police -hi..! ncz taken up the matter before. Tht-re had besn h flasrant breach of the law — such as hs trusted would not occur again. There was some doubt as to whether there were 6 or 7 passengers inside the coach, and the Bench had decided to give defendant the benefit of that doubt. A mitigated fine of £1 and costs would be imposed, but he warned defendant if a similar charge was preferred against him the full penalty would be inflicted. John T. Pope was charged with a breach of the Licensed Carriages Ordinance, similar to the last. Mr. Taylor appeared for defendant. The facts in this, case were precisely the same as in last case, and were admitted by Mr. , Trtylor, who pleaded in mitigation of the fine, that Pope bein» merely the driver of the coach was not not a free agent, as he was bonnd to act under the orders of his employers. A fine of 10s. and costs was inflicted. John T. Pope was charged with allowing a passenger to be carried upon the luggage upon the roof of his coach, in contravention of clause 11, Licensed Carriages Ordinance, 1862. Defendant did not pnt in an appearance, but was represented by Mr. Taylor. Sergeant Morton said that on the 30th December, he saw Cobb & Co .'a coach arrive from Tokomairiro. There were two passengers on the roof, one of whom was sitting on some luggage. In crossexamination, witness stated that there were several packages on the roof, but he could not say what they consisted of. For the defence, Mr. Taylor called Glover and Harding, the passengers who were on the roof of. the coach on the day in Both these witnesses positively asserted that there was no Wgage or mailbags on the roof of thecoach at the time mentioned — that there-" were only a small bag, a couple of coats, and a shawl. . ~r -• Mr. Taylor pni»*<»i out that it was not an offence to sit on the roof of the coach, and it had clearly been shown that the passenger had not been sitting on any luggage. 1 Mr. Pyke agreed with Mr. Taylor. The Ordinance made it no offence if passengers were^stowed 20 deep on the roof of a coach, but they must not sit on any luggage. The case would be dismissed. Mr. Taylor applied for costs. Mr. Pyke: Her Majesty never pays' costs. Hayes and others (trustees in Gooday's estate) v. Coghill and others.— Claim of £1 Is. due to the estate of <Sooday. Mr, Tavlor appeared for plaintiffs. H. Vye, one of the defendants, said i that by a deed executed between himself and his partners, he was cleared from all i liability in connexion with the firm, Mr. Pyke said that had nothing to do ' with the case, being merely a private arrangement between partner*. •■ The other defendants did not appear. The been proved, judgment' wa« given for plaintiffs for amount claimed, £1 Is. professional fee, and 17s. cost*. The Court then adjourned. ;