TAXI STANDS

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 151, 29 June 1922, Page 7

TAXI STANDS

BYEAW UNDER FIRE

CITY COUNCIL'S RIGHTS UPHELD.

Judgment was given by Mr. Justice Salmond at the Supreme Court to-day in regaqrd tc what was in- % sense a challenge _to the City Council by''taxi-car proprietors over the mattei of the ballot for places upon private taxi stands in the city. The action was by way of a case stated by Mr. F. K. Hunt, the appellant being- Edwin Charles Young, taxi driver, and the respondent, James Doyle, of the City Council. " ' ■ In a few words, the facts were that Young had been allotted to one stand by the i ballot for places when public taxi stands were abolished by resolution , of the council, but he exchanged stands ■with another taxi driver, and later kept his car on the stand he had usually occupied before the ballot. He was instructed 'to leave that stand, but refused to do do, and the council then cancelled -his license in order that the I matter might be tested. ■■■'.■ I The appellant, said his Honour, had not been convicted of an offence, but because of his wilful refusal to obey the condition attached to his license, he was "deemed by the council^ unfit to hold a license," and his license was cancelled on that ground. , The appellant's contentions wen Ihat the oonditior attached to his license was iunrea«onable, ultra vires, and void; that ■he was under no obligation to conform to it; that he was guilty of no misconduct; that there was therefore no evidence on which the council could deem him unfit to hold a license; that the order of cancellation was therefore null and void; that the license accordingly remained' in ■full force, and that his conviction for "plying for hire without a license was erroneous in law. Even if the order of the council cancelling the license were improperly made, J said his Honour, Young could not treat it as a mere nullity. In exercising its power.of cancelling licenses the council acted in a quasi-judicial capacity. Its jurisdiction was to determine, after hearing the licensee in his defence, whether in the opinion of the council the licensee was unfit to hold a license. It might be that, there was no evidence on which that order could have . been properly made, and it might be that the order was | made under some- error of law or fact, but it. was, on the face of it; the kind |of order which the council had juristic-1 tion to make, and made, on a ground I which was sufficient under the bylaw, the unfitness of the licensee to hold a license. A judicial or quasi-judicial determination was not void and a mere nullity simply because there was no evidence to support it. His Honoui thon referred to decisions of the English Courts bearing upon the point, and suggested that if the appellant desired a judicial determination as to the council's power to impose the conI dition to which he objected, ho should apply to the council for.a new and- unconditional license, and if that license was refused to proceed for a mandamus requiring the council to hear and determine the application according to law. During the hearing, 'Mr. N. S. Johnston appeared for appellant and Mr. H; Buddie for the City Cuuncil.

[The ':atile newd in this issuo accredited to "Xlie Times" lias apneami In that Journal, bub only whf.re cxpresoly suted la such news tbe