THE CAB COLLISION CASE.

Evening Post, Volume XXI, Issue 61, 15 March 1881, Page 2

THE CAB COLLISION CASE.

As will be seen by our report, in another column, of the proceedings yesterday in the Besident Magistrate's Court, the cab collision case, about which so much has been heard owing to the illegal action of the City Council, has come again under magisterial review, this time as a civil action, with the result that the decision previously arrived at by Mr. Shaw, 8.M., has been completely endorsed by a different Bench, comprising "Mr. pavy, 8.M., and Mr. J. H. Wallace, JJ?. The case, in fact, was abundantly clear, all the evidence going to show that the defendant, Carter,' was wholly to blame, and caused the colli-aon recklessly if not wilfully, there being only his own denial on the other side. Accordingly judgment was given against him for damages and costs. Our only reason for alluding again to this matter is (o point out that the result of the two pases before the Court is entirely to justify the' action taken by Mr. Johnson, Inspector of Hackney' Carriages, under the advice of the City Solicitor, and sfili further to demonstrate the outrageous impropriety' of £he City Council's conduct in endeavoring to upset the decision of the Court and in. voting a sum out of the ratepayers' money to pay the defendant for having committed an offence against the law. If any cabman who has a grudge against another fl»n recklessly or wilfully drive into hit

frival's vehicle, "^cad do him considerable damage, beside risking the lives and limbs of the passengers in both conveyances, with the certainty that the City Council will recoup him any fine which may be inflicted on him for his conduct, then we can only say it is a bad look out for the more orderly and peaceably-disposed cabmen, and for cab passengers generally. The danger incurred, both by the well-behaved cabmen and by the innocent passengers, through these vagaries of excitable cab-drivers seems to be very lightly regarded by the City Council, who, although they go through the form of passing by-laws for the protection of the public, and paying an officer to enforce those regulations, nevertheless censure that officer when he carries out the duties for which he is appointed and paid, and recoup (out of the ratepayers' money) any offenders who may be deservedly mulcted on his'prosecution. The brilliant idea lately struck out by certain members of the Council that they should be consulted before any prosecution was undertaken would practically amount to making the enforcement of the Municipal by-laws purely a matter of personal or political influence. Such a principle is almost more dangerous and objectionable than the unlawful appropriation of publio money in which City Councillors are so fond of indulging. It ought to show the Council the contempt into which they bring themselves, by their truckling to spurious popularity, when they find the very offender, whom they rewarded for being convicted, turning round on them, and not only deriding them for their weakness, but also casting in their teeth previous instances of similarly illegal expenditure. Surely this must be to these sapient Councillors "the moat unkindest cut of all ! "