NUMBER OF CABS ON STAND

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27224, 16 December 1953, Page 8

NUMBER OF CABS ON STAND

PROSECUTION OF TAXI DRIVER

HEARING ADJOURNED FOR LEGAL SUBMISSIONS The decision in this case would be important, as it would indicate whether they were to have any semblance of control over taxi-drivers at taxi stands, or -whether chaos would prevail, said Chief Patrol Officer P. Lunn in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when he conducted the prosecution in a case brought by the traffic department of the Christchurch City Council against Thomas Basil Nicholson, a taxi driver 'Mr R. A, Young) for overloading a taxi stand. The hearing was adjourned by Mr Raymond Ferber. S.M.. so that submissions on law by Mr Young could be considered by the City Council solicitor, Mr W. R. Lascelles, who had not been briefed for yesterday’s sitting. Mr Lunn said that the charge was laid under Section 6, Clause IB of the | third schedule of the Transport Licensing Regulations, 1950. This provided that a taxi driver “shall not cause his taxi-cab to be drawn up on or adjacent to a taxi stand which is already occupied by the full number of vehicles which the stand is intended to accommodate.” He said that the clause was quite plain in laying down the duties of a taxi-driver.

“I am aware that taxi-drivers are entitled to earn a fair living.” said Mr Lunn, “and it is only natural that they will go where the greatest amount of work is offering, but I submit they are duty bound to give service to the public, and I say that they have courted this trouble by not giving service at all stands in the city.”

It was well-known that stands in Cashel street and Cathedral square were the most lucrative stands in the city, said Mr Lunn, and it w’as on busy days that there was trouble with taxis coming up to these stands when they were already filled. The vehicles double-parked and parked at angles so that while they might be there only a short time, they could create a traffic hazard at busy times. If the taxi proprietors were not satisfied with the existing stands their argument was with the City Council and that did not alter the law. *

Traffic Inspector Henry William Morris said that at 5 p.m. on September 16 he had checked Nicholson’s taxi which was overloading a taxi stand in Cashel street outside the Shaw, Savill building. The stand was intended to accommodate four cabs, and Mr Nicholson’s was the fifth in the stand. In addition to a Class D sign. “Taxis, Keep Clear,” there was a separate sign attached reading “Four Cabs.” Nicholson’s cab was half on the stand and half across a right-of-way at the back of the stand.

Witness said Nicholson said he had swung in across the alleyway. at the end of the stand, which was the only clear space available, to observe whether the stand was full or whether there was room on the main stand on the opposite side of the street over High street. To Mr Young witness said it was customary for taxis to feed into the main stand in Cashel street from the stand outside the Shaw, Savill building. Counsel for Defence Mr Young said that whether it was the law or not the law, taxi drivers had for a long period of years conformed to a feeder system of moving into a main stand, and it was necessary for orderly operation of taxis. The difficulty that operators had in approaching a stand w’as to ascertain whether there was room on the stand for them. It was submitted that it was only commonsense to draw into a vacant space to make the necessary inquiry. It would be a strange law if a taxi-driver could not do what any motorist could do. Mr Young said that the word “intended” in the schedule was a loose word, and should have no place in a quasi-criminal regulation. Did it mean intended bv a licensing authority, a controlling authority, traffic inspectors as a class, the public as a class, or operators as a group? Whose intention was denoted in those words? Laws relating to transport had become nothing but a maze in recent years, continued Mr Young. This schedule had been inadvertently tacked on to transport licensing regulations.

It was his submission that before the liberty of the subject was restricted to the effect where a taxidriver could not pull into the kerb for reasonable purposes there should be clear and valid regulations. Mr Lunn said that under the Municipal Corporations Act. 1933, the council had pow’er to set down taxi stands.

“I had no indication that this case was going to be fought on a point of law.” said Mr Lunn. Otherwise he would have had the City Council call in its solicitor. “This is getting out of my depth,” he said. At this stage Mr Young said he would be prepared to put his submissions in writing and submit them to the Magistrate and the solicitor for the City Council. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to a date to be fixed.

Similar charges against six other taxi-drivers were also set down for hearing yesterday.