BUSES TO RACES.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 209, 4 September 1929, Page 8

BUSES TO RACES.

WHAT IS A "SERVICE?"

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.

INTERPRETATION OF ACT,

An appeal of considerable interest to motor omnibus owners and local authorities came before his Honor, Sir Alex. Her dm an, in the Supreme Court to-day, when Henry Reynolds, the Devonport Borough Council's traffic inspector (Mr. Stanton) souglit the reversal of a judgment delivered by ill*. E. C, Cuttcn, S.M. The information alleged that Messrs. Stokes and Johnston, bus proprietors (Mr. Northcroft), of 31, Beach Road, Parnell, carried on a motor omnibus service, consisting of two vehicles, within the No. 2 Motor Omnibus district without a license, and the magistrate on April 11 dismissed the prosecution, though it was admitted that the vehicles camc° within the meaning of the Act and had plied for hire and carried passengers on November 30, 1928, at 1/ each way on several occasions to and from the Takapuna racecourse and the main wharf at Devonport. Lower Court Decision. In giving his judgment the magistrate had said the main point was the contravention of Section o. Mr. Cutten said he did not think the defendants carried on a "service" as construed by the Act, as the term in question implied some regularity and continuity. The defendants had no time-table and it was a special occasion when large numbers of people were going to and from the Takapuna races. His Worship held that what defendants had done did not interfere with the other services on the same route, which ciiarged much less than defendants who were carrying traffic which could not have been carried by the established licensed buses. Even admitting that there were three or four similar race meetings during the year and defendants made a practice of carrying passengers, he did not think it came within the meaning of the Act. The magistrate said that if defendants had made a practice of joining with others, on even one occasion, and of competing with an existing service at week-ends or on other occasions when traffic was increased, there would have been a breach as they would have been using an unlicensed vehicle in an unauthorised way. This the defendants did not do, but met the requirements of conveyance of abnormal traffic on a special occasion. Points by Counsel. Mr. Stanton maintained that running to and from the races was a service, and could not be carried on without a license from the Devonport Council, as the licensing authority. The Act clearly covered this form of transportation and the occasions of sports meetings and such gatherings with respect to traffic regulation. Mr. Northcroft, for the respondents, agreed that the Act was a necessary measure to control unrestricted competition where public services were provided. That was the principle and •moving part of the mischief aimed at by the legislature to prevent spasmodic and irregular services springing up and being abandoned. It was not intended to interfere with the occasional or casual running of buses, but to ensure continuity of bus transportation for suburban residents. Hence the Act applied 'only to vehicles plying regularly and on a definite route. What respondents were doing was not a service within the definition of the Act.

"As the case is of some importance I will reserve decision," said tlio judge.