LICENSE CANCELLED.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 238, 5 October 1923, Page 7

LICENSE CANCELLED.

CITY COUNCIL CHALLENGED. AN INJUSTICE ALLEGED. IMPORTANT COURT CASE. An important Issue was involved in an interesting case heard before his Honor ; Mr. Justice in the Auckland Supreme Court to-day, when the right of the City Council to delegate to the ' Finance and Legal Committee its : powers in connection with the cancelling of motor-car drivers' certificates was ' argued. The action hinged on the cancelling , of the certificate of a bus driver on' the Grey Lynn-Point Chevalier route, and '. petitioner's case was presented by Mr. '. R. McVeagh. The City Council was , represented by Mr. A. H. Johnstone. ] The plaintiff, Frederick John Williamson, motor bus proprietor. Point Cheva- • Her, in his statement of claim, stated , that on August 4. 102:1, he received notice from Mr. G. R. Hogan, city traffic < inspector, to appear before the Finance \ and Legal Committee of the City Council | "to give an account of your conduct in connection with a recent assault case , heard at the Magistrate's Court on June ] 15, 1023, and to show cause why your , omnibus driver's license should "not be , suspended, or cancelled, as required by Section 707, By-law I. You will please , hring your omnibus driver's license with , you."' The assault case referred to was ; a case against Arthur Flynn. another , Point Chevalier "bus driver and plain- ; tiff, in which they were charged with . using threatening behaviour, the result being that Flynn was convicted, while , the -charge against Williamson was dismissed, plaintiff being held to be in no . way responsible for the breach of the . peace. "Behind Closed Doors. Williamson stated further that the Legal and Finance Committee sat with closed doors, plaintiff not being allowed ' to he present when Flynn and two police constables gave evidence, nor being i allowed an opportunity of questioning ' them or meeting the statements they made. Subsequently the committee re- t ported to the City' Council and recom- : mended the cancellation of his license, i which recommendation was adopted- No reasons were assianed for cancelling the license, and plaintiff complained to the Court that the council itself did not : inquire into the matter. Mr. McVeagh contended the committee ' had not acted according to the rules of natural justice, it being obvious that ' there was some evidence upon which they ' acted of which the plaintiff had no ' knowledge. Counsel further contended ! that the committee acted in defiance of ; the rules of justice by not giving notice of their intention to go into additional ' charges to that mentioned in the notice. ' On these grounds he submitted that the '• order should be quashed. ( In the course of his argument, Mr. ' McVeagh quoted numerous authorities J in support of his contention, one case being the rescission of a vicar's order dis- ' missing (without hearing any defence) ' a clerk who was said to have read the ' responses in church in such a way as to ' make everybody laugh. 1 His Honor: The clerk might have ex- ' plained his conduct by stating he was • ' possessed by a demon. Mr. McVeagh: A court of justice never punishes a man without giving him an opportunity of explaining his conduct. ' Hiß Honor: The committee went into ' matters which they had no right to do. ' Mr. McVeagh contended that William- ' son had been punished twice for one offence, which was against justice. N Point Chevalier's Troubles. < For the City Council Mr. Johnstone j submitted there were no grounds for the < Court's interference which the coun- 1 cil's discretion in exercising the by-law. t Although the notice to Williamson re- s ferred specially to the Court case, that ] matter (to the knowledge of all parties) j was not the beginning of the difficulties ( which had existed in connection with j the Point Chevalier bus service. It was, ] he submitted, merely the culmination of - a long period of troublesome conduct j by both bus proprietors on that run. j The need for an efficient bus service to and from Point Chevalier, said Mr. j Johnstone, was of first importance in the interests of public safety. Quite the reverse, he commented, had been the j case. Rivalry seemed to have existed between the two lines, with the result that the public safety had been in danger from time to time. He did not say who < was to blame. Counsel then quoted , the evidence on affidavit of the traffic ( inspector, Mr. Hogan, who stated that at various times he had had trouble in \ connection with the bus service, and that complaints had been made of dan- , gerous driving as far back as two years ] ago. He had cautioned Williamson for , failing to keep to his time-table, and ( in July, 1922, Williamson and Lupton were before the committee, when they j were both warned that further trouble i would result in their losing their , licenses. Witness was satisfied plaintiff ( ■was very much to blame for the trouble j which continued, especially to the be- , ginning of this year, and he considered his continuance on the service had become ( a source of danger to his passengers. The Least They Could Do. 1 Counsel mentioned that Lupton's license was cancelled in April. Altogether Williamson and Lupton were before the city officials on no less than five occasions. Referring to the committee's proceedings, his Honor said one would have expected that at least they would have allowed plaintiff to hear what Flynn ; said. ; Mr. Johnstone admitted that would : have been the better way. hut he submitted that if Williamson's attention : was called to what Flynn said that was sufficient. No question of breach of i any by-law was raised. The question was whether the man was to be allowed to be a carrier of passengers. No ob jection was taken to the method of inquiry either by Williamson or Iris solicitor, and counsel submitted that ; the rules of natural justice were complied with. His Honor: You imparted into the inquiry previous transactions which had been the result of investigations—possibly ex parte —and as to plaintiff had" no opportunity of answering. ■ Mr. Johnstone: Even if that were so, i the facts were known to 'both parties. It is a-case in which a general supervision has been exercised for years by the council over these drivers, and it deals with their fitness to carry on their i business. His Honor: That is Important, but the committee must proceed by regular methods. Mr. Johnstone: That i 3 the only difficulty, namely, that the proceedings were not .as complete as one could have wished. His Honor reserved his decision.