QUEEN-STREET TRAM-CAR CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 177, 26 July 1907, Page 5

QUEEN-STREET TRAM-CAR CASE.

INFORMATION DISMISSED,

Mr R. W. Dyer, S.M., gave decision this morning in the case against the motorman John Whitehouse, prosecuted last week by the City Traffic Inspector, Mr John Turner, for having failed to pull up at the Shprtland-street stopping place on July 10, his car at the time not having its complement of passengers. Mr Mays appeared in the case for defendant.

His Worship, in reviewing the circumstances adduced, in the course of which it was stated that under a new by-law of the company, intending passengers were requested to notify the motorman of their desire to board a car by holding up one hand, expressed the opinion that comparatively few people had a timetable containing the regulations, and that fewer still had read the notices. If it was intended to take up the position that no car should stop unless someone held up a hand or did some similar act, then the widest publicity should be given to the rule, and it should be strictly enforced. With regard to the by-law providing that the driver shall bring his tram-car to a standstill whenever, to his knowledge, any person is desirous of becoming a passenger. "The by-law, said his Worship, "is, in my opinion, unfortunately worded, and what no doubt passed in the old days of the omnibus service—the duty of proving that the defendant knew that passengers wanted to board the car —is thrown on the passenger a well-nigh impossible task. In the present case, the defendant has sworn that he did not know anj'one wanted to board his car, that he thought the people standing at the stopping place might be either wanting to cross the street or be waiting for another car going in some other direction. How far this is true is, I think, open to doubt, not so much from what the defendant said as from the manner in which he said it. However, I have to deal with the by-law as I find it; it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant had the required knowledge, and not for the defendant to justify his action. It does not come within my province to make suggestions, but only to try and interpret the law as it stands. Ido not think the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the defendant knew that he was required to stop, and the information will be dismissed. There will be no costs.