TRAMWAY CASES.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12364, 1 December 1905, Page 2

TRAMWAY CASES.

* FAILING TO PRODUCE TICKETS. Ernest Martin (Mr Salter) was charged before Mr V. O. Day, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday with failing to pay his fare on a tram oar. Mr Loughnan, who appeared for the Tramway Board, said that tho caeo was laid under section 5 of the ty-lawe.. The off_-ncd was that Martin, being a passenger, declined to produce his ticket when the inspector applied for it. The section said that a port-on was not deemed to have paid nis faro when ho cKd not produce his ticket. Morris Allen said that he was a ticket inspector for the Train waj' Board. On August 19th ho had occasion .to board the car from town to Cashmere at 10.30 p.m. Defendant was on tho car. Ho

asked accused to 6how his ticket, but h«i refused. Ho told him that ho woulu have to demand another fare if ho did not 6how his ticket, but ho refused to pay another fare, and witness told him to leave tho oar. Witness stopped the oar, but Martin refused to leave, and ho went and tried to get the police. When he came back to tho car, tho accused v.-Ai6 just leaving. Witness had had about threo months' experience on trams as inspector. Ho had had a dispute with tho accused on several occasions. He could not say whether he had paid his fare or not. Tho tickets contained a footnote stating that they must be produced when required. Thero wero a good many people in the tram nt the time. He did not ask the guard whether the aocus&d had paid his fare. Phillip James Kelly, guard, said that he remembered the oooasion. Accuse had paid his fare. He found that souk of tho passengers objected to the inspection of tickets. _ ■'• Richard Walker Anderson statiedthal ho was a passenger on the car.-" There was some trouble on the car that mg&t. Tho inspector was very civil to accused. He did not give him any cause of comP Mr Salter said that the accused w*s charged with not paying In. fare, and they had the evidence of the guard that he had naid ft. Tne Board were not entitled To two fares for tho same journey. If a -person could show that ho had paid his fare otherwise than by showing his ticket, how otftild ho be punished when ho had paid his fare a<*?""ng to the evidence P He submitted that there was no case to answer. The Magistrate said there was a cafce to answer. ~ , _ • „ r ~ Mr Salter then willed Ernest Martin, who stated that ho waa travelling on tho oar in question. The inspector oamo for liitf ticket, and ho looked at it and gave it back to him. Ho raised no question as regards his being on the oar. He handed him the right ticket among a number of othere. He had to report tho inspector on one occasion for being insolent to him. He left tho car because the inspector seemed determined to bokL up the car. He did produce his ticket. The inspector never raised any objec- ' Pcrcv Diserens stated that be was with Aiartin, and accused'produced his The Magistrate dismissed tfio case. Percy Diserens (Mr Cassidy) was cbargod with failing to produoo Ins ticket on August 19th. Similar evidence was given, but was contradictory as to whether the defendant produced a ticket or not. The Magistrate said that as this was only a test case he thought it would be met by entering a conviction and ordering tho accused to pay the costs. The evidence did not show that tho accused produced a ticket, and therefore ho would inflict the above penalty.