MOTOR BUS HIRE LICENSES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 204, 28 August 1926, Page 17

MOTOR BUS HIRE LICENSES.

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. FIRST CASE OF ITS KIND. (From Our Special Correspondent.) MORRINSVILLE, Friday. A by-law case, first of its kind, •nd of interest particularly to local; bodies and motor bus proprietors, was j heard at the Morrinsville Court before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M. The question at issue was whether a motor bus ply-1 ing for hire in more than one borough i tad to be licensed separately in each I ■borough in which it in addition to paying the heavy traffic license fee. The magistrate held that a I eeparate license fee must be paid to each borough under these circumstances.' The case was one in which the-; Morrinsville Borough Council proceeded i against A. L. Dent (proprietor of a motor bus running through the Morrin»ville borough from Hamilton to Te Aroha) for plying for hire within the borough without taking out a license fee as required by the by-laws. Mr. S. 6. Alleu appeared for the borough council and Mr. W. J. King (of Hamilton) lor the defendant. Mr. King submitted the payment of the h-savy traffic foe licensed the vehicle tfor tne carrying of passengers in any part of New Zealand. Defendant's garage was in Hamilton, and he had paid, in addition to the heavy traffic fee, j the Hamilton Borough Council's license fee of £2 2/. which. Mr. King contended, was that for which some service was given, an inspection of all such vehicles being made periodically 'as to | ensure safe, clean and commodious t TehicWs for tlie public. If defendant | •were made liable for the Morrinsville Borough Council's fee he must also pay j this fee to the Te xVroha Borough Couti- : cil, and (if he extended his service to ; Paeroj) to the Paeroa Council alsoJ •without obtaining any additional inspec- ' tion service, which he received at Hamilton. The Magistrate: But that is not. the J>oint. Do you not get the privilege of plying for hire? , I\lr. King thought it unreasonable and inequitable if defendant had to pay the fee in each borough. If such were the case there would be no limitation to the number of such fees a bus proprietor ■would have to pay; for instance, if a, bus brought a football team from j Hamilton to Morrinsville and returned i •with the team after the match, the pro- J pri'.vor would have to pay the Morrina- j vill. , Borough Council's license fee. I The magistrate said this would not be plying for hire. Mr. Allen maintained that the pur-y>o-.ps of the two licenses were entirely different. The Municipal Corporations Act contemplated that more than one license would liavp to bo paid.- Plying for hire was the picking up of passeh- | gers without any previous arrangement i to do so. This would upset Mr. Kiug's argument regarding the football team. The inag-istrate: Yes, thfr« must be *om« eolieiting. In siring judgment, hit Warship itid had he had anj doubt about the eate he would hare reserred hie decision, but ! this course was not necessary. The ' additional licpnse required by the MorTihsville Borough Council, he went on. couM bp termed a plying for liirp liVpjisp. I It n[.|>H;irp(l In him ;i> 1 >[r. Kiiijj's eotitoiition in ri'Mji-H't of this license was ! jUitenablc. The license was really lor I

the privilege of plying for hire in the borough. Too much importance had been given by the defence that this was an inspection fee. It was more than that; it was a fee for the privilege of plying for hire in the borough. If it was not worth the bus owner's while to pay this fee of £2 2/ in each borough, it was not ■ necessary for him to ply for hire in those boroughs. It was quite true that the regulations made under section 36 of the Motor Vehicles Act were to over-ride any inconsistency or repugnancy in local body by-laws, but his Worship said he could not find that the by-law in question was inconsistent or repugnant, not could he term it unreasonable. The fact that by section 358 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, a plying for hire license was to operate only within five miles of the borough, supported the view that the legislature contemplated more than one such license having to be applied "for. The defendant would be convicted, and, as it was merely a test case, defendant would be merely ordered to pay costs, which amounted to £2 16/.