CABS v. EXPRESSES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 5081, 19 July 1895, Page 3

CABS v. EXPRESSES.

CAPTAIN JONES IN COURT,

In the S.M. Court this morning, sevoral cases occupied tlio attention who S.M., in which charges woro Km of carrying parcels in passenger vehicles, contrary to the provisions of the Masterton Borough By-laws, Tho first called was J. C, Ingram v. Albert Jones. Alfred Coy, expressman, gave

evidence that he saw defendant sign for a parcel and put it in Albert Jones' cab. Tho parcel was taken to Mr Pragnell's shop. Had given information to the Inspector. In answer to Captain Jones witness said this occurred on June 28th, Was quite sure of the date. Captain Jones: "Wlmt took plnce betweon mo and you? How did you remember so well ? Stato to Court why you followed mo and my boy about. What did you call nie ?" His Worship said this was not relevant. Captain Jones, with considerable heat, said lie was an old man and Coy was a young one. Coy bad called witness a bad name three timos, and now brought the action J&spite. /Wa reply to the Bench, Inspector Ingram said that if an expressman took a parcel down merely to oblige a porson, without payment, he should not interfere. Captain Joues said he had carried parcels for years and never was complained about before. His Worship thought the By-law interfered too much with the liberty of the subject. Inspector Ingram said there was a good deal of disputing amongst cabmon and oxpressmen, and it. was desired to put a stop to it. A, J, Hathaway, Inspector of Hackney Carriages, gave evidenco that Jones was licensed to carry passengers but not parcels, other than passenger's luggage. His Worship said if it was possible to construe the By-law that a person could carry a parcel as a friendly net it might be done in this case. Thero was no evidence that Mr Jones bad received a penny of remuneration and the caso would accordingly bo dismissed. dfynry Colo pleaded not guilty to under the Borough By-laws of carrying parcels in a vehicle not licensed for the same. Alfred Coy gave evidence of the offence. Mr R. K, Jackson for defendant oross-examined witness at length. The information was dismissed. Edward Jones was charged with carrying parcels other than passenger luggage. DavidHeggie was culled, and gavo evidence that he saw defendant take ' a parcol to Mr Pragnell's. The S.M. said it appeared that thoy | were dealing with a case already decided, The witness swore that it was the same parcol alluded to by Coy. It ' was not right to pick up any cockand bull story and bring a case 011 it, into Court. Witness said bo did not know the dato.

His Worship:" What am Ito take down ? What is the evidence ?" flex. Falls gavo evidence that he at the railway station one day n Jones and Coy wore wrangling over parcels. This was the 12th of July. Tho stationmaster refused to allow the parcel to go away without an order, and Mr Jones went away and got one and took the parcel. Mr Jones carried parcels all over the town.

Captain Jones retorted that Palls frequently took passengers in an express. Captain, to Witness: " Can you swear that I took a parcel in a cab f" Witness: "Well, you might call it a cab. We call it ut woolwaggon." Defendant: "Then bow could it be a cab, if it was a wool-waggon." (Laughter). The Bench said that it appeared that Mr Jones had carried parcels, but there was nothing to show that ho received payment. If too many cases of the kind, came before him, the suggestion that it had been a mere friendly act, would become too thin. ( Alfred Coy said in reply to dcfendjjft that the parcel was delivered on His Worship said that the witness told the Court that the parcels were delivered on 28th June. Continuing bis evidence, witness said he did not see the defendent deliver the parcel, He saw defendant take a parcel out of the drag, but was 300 yards away. His Worship said that Coy had told told them a minute before that ho did not see the parcel delivered, and ordered the witness to leave the box.

0, Pragnell said he did not know what parcel was referred to. Sometimes defendant brought to his shop parcels under his arm. He eou Id not Bay who paid for the one referred to. His .Worship said there was no proof in this case, and the information would bedismissed; at the same time ho cautioned defendant against cmying parcels in his hackney carriage.