AN OKAIN'S BAY CASE.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume LIII, Issue 2799, 14 August 1903, Page 2

AN OKAIN'S BAY CASE.

The " Lyttelton Times," of Tuesday lait, reports :—

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, be* fore Mr W. R. Haselden. 8.M., J. B. Thaoker, aheep farmer, Okain's Bay (Mr ly), sued R. Pitcaithly and Co , owners of the 8.8. John Anderson (Mr Beswick) for £25 damagos and lose sustained through their refusal to carry him as a passenger except at an exorbiiant rate. Mr Donnelly said that the question bis Worship had to decide was whether the defendants were common carriers or private carriers, and if tbey were entitled to make a distinction between one paesenger and another as to the fare. <

John R. Thacker produoed a ticket iaeued by the owners of the John Anderson for the trip between Lyttelton and Okain's Bay a#> year ago. The usual fare was about 5s or 7s, and the distance about twelve miles. Oα May 28th he went aboard the s.e. John Anderson at 8.30 a.m.; Captain Conville and Mr William Pitoaithly were present,*! and they asked a lady passenger if she was going to Okain'e Bay. She replied that she wae, and the captain promised that the boat would put in there. Before putting off from Lyttelton the captain informed witness that hie fare would be £1, the same as his sister and mother were charged. Witness replied that he would not pay it, and the captain remarked that be would not oarry him (witness) for the usual fare. About two hour a after leaving Lyttelton the captain came round to collect fares, and asked for £1 from witness. Witness refused to pay more thaatf ss, and the captain immediately put the boat's head round, and made back to Lyttel ton. As they were nearing the wharf witness was told that if he wished to go to the bay now he would be charged 30s for lose of* time and coal. Witness went ashore under protest. He had not undertaken to ray £1 passage when he left Lyttelton, and did not consider that the captain was entitled bo charge him more than was charged the othea* passengers going to the same destination, namely ss. Witness was a man of consider-

able means, and there was no question of fcne shipowners being able to recover the amount o( the passage if they bad carried* him.

Copies of the Akaroa Mail were put in.*, in which tripi to be made by the s.e. Jolnfp Anderson were announced. This was in support of the plaiDfcifFs contention that the steamer was a common carrier. In conae-

quenoe of being put off the steamer, witness .

had to return to Ohri&tchurch, proceed to Little River, and thenca rule through from thit place to his farm—a veiy roundabout route. Later a demand was m&de from Pit caithly and Co. for £1 for detention of the vessel through witnesos refueivl to pay the fare.

To Mr Beswick : He did nos ship his pro duce or grass seed u> Lyttetton by the s.s. John Anderson, and could not remember having made a boast that he would ruin the firm. At the time he weat on board, at LytteUon, he knew from hearsay ihat the defendants had charged his mother and eister £1 for their passage.

Herbert) Coombes Newton, contractor, stated that he never heard of anyone being charged for the trip in the a.\me amount as Thacker was.

Thoiras Weir, reaiding at Waikarekikeri, Bald thxt he had never heard of more than 7e 6d being charged. Leslie Kay, reaiding at Okain'e Bay, gave evidence thac 7a 6d was the usual passage to Lyttelton. Mr Beswick admitted that the boat was registered to cr.riy passengers, and that the defendants were responsible for the acts of the captain. Mr Beswick, in opening the defence, sub* mit:ed that the defendants were entitled to refuse a pissase to anyone who intended to injure the business of the firm. Some two or three years ago the p'aint'ff had uttered a threat that he would do all in his power to drive the firm's vessels off the running.

Mr Haselden dismissed this point at once A person's opposition to the firm conLl b? DO argument to justify it in refusing piSiftge. If that were so persjns in commercial opposition to the firm could be dealt with in the same manner.

William Pitcaithly, one of the owners of the steamboat, said that tbe firm also ran the 8.8. Cygnet. It would not pay them to run for paesengere only, especially in the winter time. On April 3 witness raised the fares, giving the captain written iastructions to charge £1 passage to Okain'o Bay, but to grant conceessions to tupporters of the firm. Witness gave the namej of several people who had been charged the increased rate. Robert Pitcaithly, another member of the defendant firm, said the principle they acted upon was to give a reduction, and even to carry for nothing, persons who gave their carrying trade to the firm. There wae no profit in carrying passengers. Captain Ooaville, of the e.B. John Anderion, said he had actud upjn the instructionii contained in the letter from the firm in raieicg the fare. Five persons other than the plaintiff had been charged lOi fares, and two bad paid under protest The plaintiff was told of the fare that was required of him, and said he would pay when the other people were paying. He objected at the time, however, to paying more than ss. Afterwards when he refused to pay, the ▼easel was pnt baok again into Lyttelton, and he was put ashore under protest.

To Mr Donnelly : An ordinary passenger going to Okain's Bay would be charged ss. Jimes Whiteon, engineer of the boat, gave evidenoe to show that the pl-untiff was aware of the fire required of him before the vessel cast off.

William Pigeon gave evidence that he had been charged the new rates by the captain, but he regarded the charge aa a joke and ] aid only 7s 6il. Mr Beswick submitted hnl uu!e93 some obligation was imposed by Act of Parliament the defendant wab not bound 10 •_ irry pass , engera as he was bouml to cwry i>no(\s, Mr Donnelly submitted tint. h?. boat was a carrier of pmsenqeri, a:id viie cii -.;ge of £1 "*was unreasonable. His Worship reserved judgment until August 17.

Amendment Bill, Pauv Industry Act Extension Bill and Wireles* telegraphy Bill passed their final stnges. The Lw Amendment Bill was received from the Legislative Counoil and read a first time, Tne CMonial Tre niirer, tV-e Right Hon. R. J. Seddon, delivered the Financial State' mens, a!/ the cLsa of which ha said that he int , micd to commence the Financial Debate on Friday night next). August 12. Aβ the result of voting, taken on the mat , ter, it was decided that alcoholic liquor should ba sold within fche Parliamentary Buildings. Several new Bill* were introduced. After a heated discuesion the second read ing of the Bruce Licensing Poll Validation Bill was lost.