DECLARED ILLEGAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 151, 29 June 1927, Page 8

DECLARED ILLEGAL.

COMMUNITY BUSES.

EVADING THE ACT

VOLim-AHY CONTRIBUTIONS AS

FARES.

TWO DEFENDANTS FINED,

DECISION FOR APPEAL

Judgment against community buses svas given in the Magistrate's Court this Jcorning by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M.

Action, with a view to ascertaining Whether or not community buses are subject to the provisions of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, 1926, was taken mgainst thirteen people connected with the Mount Eden and Birkenhead Transit and Social Clubs. Those charged were: George Wm. Sutcliffe, Thomas Halliday, 'Albert Edward Ival, Edward Doherty, Leslie White, Charles Oswald Geddis, Wm. E. Parkinson, Vivian Walter C. Parkinson, Daniel McLaren, Frank Harris, James Cunningham, E. Stevenson and James Stenberg. Two defendants were represenated by Mr. J. J. Sullivan, Mr. Hall Skelton appearing for the remainder. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the City Council. The cases against George William Sutcliffe and Walter C. Parkinson were beard on June 17, when the magistrate reserved his decision. The hearing of the other cases was adjourned. Mr. Cutten, in delivering judgment, eaid that, in a statement of facts, it •was admitted that the defendants were the registered owners of petrol-driven motor vehicles designed to carry twentyone passengers, which were driven along routes within No. 1 Licensing District, and that during the course of their journeys these vehicles picked up any persons who desired to board the same, and permitted them ta alight at places along the route. The passengers were not asked for any fare, but a box was placed within the vehicle, situated near the driver's seat, on which was painted a notice in these words: "Voluntary Contributions for the Social Club." It was also admitted that the working expenses were paid out of the moneys so collected, and that the defendants had not obtained licenses to carry on these cervices under the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, 1926, but the vehicles were licensed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924. In addition to these admissions of fact, evidence was given on behalf of the complainant that persons travelling on a bus were able to get change from the driver, and, in fact, usually put in the box sums more ©r less corresponding to the ordinary "tram fare or bus fare for the journey travelled. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that these voluntary contributions constituted passage money, and, therefore, were fares, and that this invitation to make contributions instead of requiring the payment of definite faree was merely an endeavour to evade the provisions of the Act. The defendants, on the other hand, drew attention to the definition of "motor omnibus services" which was defined as meaning "the carriage by motor omnibus of passengers for hire et fares," arid they contended that it could not be said that these passengers Avere carried for hire "at fares." The defendants further said that they are not carrying on the services with unlicensed vehicles because they had licensed their vehicles as motor coaches •under the provisions of the Motor .Vehicle Act, 1824. The defendants resented the suggestion that the method of carrying on their services was an attempt to evade the provisions of the "Motor Omnibus Traffic Act of 1926, and : claimed that by their method they were i-merely avoiding its provisions, and they were complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924. "I -think," said Mr. Cutten, "there can be ; little doubt that in carrying on a service with large motor vehicles within a licensing district as denned by the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, 1926, on . routes already traversed by tramways or by licensed motor omnibus services, picking up and putting down persons along that route, and accepting payment for the journeys in the form of contributions, the defendants are, in fact, carrying on a service of the kind which the Act was intended to regulate and control. Looked at as a matter of common sense, this seems to be obviously an attempt to evade the provisione of the Act. The defendants run the necessary service to carry passengers, and instead of fixing the fares for the various distances travelled, they ask the persons who travel to make voluntary contributions, trusting that for the most part they will pay the ordinary fares." The magistrate quoted the case of Cox v. Mayner by the decision in which he thought the position to be concluded. Defendants were convicted and fined £5 1/ with costs. On Mr. Hall Skelton's application, security for appeal was fixed at £10 10/. In reference to the remaining cases, Mr. Johnstone expressed himself ready to go on Tvifch them at once. Mr. Hall Skelton suggested that they should be allowed to stand over pending the appeal case at the Supreme Court. Mr. Johnstone was not prepared to agree to this, and the cases were set down for hearing at 3 p.m. on Friday.