TAXI “PIRATES”

Evening Star, Issue 22086, 20 July 1935, Page 14

TAXI “PIRATES”

CHARGES &F TOUTING DISMISSED FOR (LACK OF EVIDENCE In an endeavour to clieck an, as* sertedly increasing nuisance among taxi drivers of leaving their vehicles on the appointed stand and touting for hire on the railway station, proceedings were taken against three taxi drivers' in the Police Court yesterday afternoon, when Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., dismissed the charges of touting and imposed small fines on the other counts. Pleas of not guilty were entered by all the defendants—Edward Joseph Flannagan and Wilfred Herbert Tilbury, who were charged on both counts, and Robert Gibson who was charged only with leaving his; vehicle . to tout for hire. They were represented by Mr E. J. Anderson, and Mr A. N. Haggitt; appeared for the City Corporation traffic department. Complaints had been received from private car owners, travellers, and. other taxi men who believed in fair competition, Mr Haggitt said. At. the request of the taxi drivers a parking place had been provided in . Station street, but when trains came in other taxi men whom he might describe as “ pirates ” or “ buccaneers ” were accustomed to “ swoop ..dou*n ’’ and endeavour to take business from others • who had waited on the proper stands.. The charges were brought under the section of the city‘by-laws which forbade taxi drivers to leave their vehicles to tout for business and the section, which made it an . offence to leave * taxi at a place other than an authorised stand.

In ,1932, Mr Haggitt continued, five taxi drivers had been convicted on similar charges, and notice of appeal had been given. - -This appeal had never been prosecuted, , however, and he thought that life" was entitled to he told whether it was intended to go on with, the appeal. , Mr Anderson said that while the appear was pending it was found that if an adjustment could be made to the Station street stand there would be n® need to appeal. ■ This adjustment involved the;making of a white line, beyond which the taxis would not be permitted'to pass. ,Hb thought that this had actually been working for a time. If this system were not'found satisfactory he presumed that he would be instructed to go. on with "the appeal. Evidence was given by Traffic Inspector Thurston, who said that on June 24, with Inspector Munro, he had gone to the Railway* Station at about 5.25 p.m. He saw Flannagan, Tilbury, and Gibson standing inside the station gates at the north end of the platform. Flannagan’s car and that of Tilbury were standing near the end of station, but Gibson’s oar was on the stand in Station street.

To Mr Anderson, witness said that it would not be correct to say that there were no passengers coming from the station. If the defendants said, the time was 5.35 that would be wrong. Traffic Inspector Munro gave evidence along similar lines. To Mr Anderson he laid that a traffic officer was needed at the station whenever trains were arriving. Mr Anderson said the evidence did not prove that there had been any touting or soliciting,, and he submitted that the charges in this respect, must fail. Robert Gibson said that when the traiin came in he and Tilbury were talking near their cars. They saw no likely fares coming from the station and they strolled up to the edge of the platform,: Flannagan had not been vvitn them, ' His car was left hear Tilbury’s. Flannagan would be almost back to his car when' the inspectors arrived. The time would be 5.35 and they had given up all hope of getting any business. Inspector Munro, when talking to them later, said that he had beeh instructed to get some cases 1 to bring the pending appeal to a head. Tilbury corroborated the evidence of - the previous witness. v Mr Anderson said that the words of the by-law—“ while standing, waiting, or plying for hire ” —governed th« situation. He submitted that the evidence did not bear out the charges.

Mr Haggitt said that the defendant* admitted leaving their vehicles, and he submitted that they could have done so for only one purpose. It was open to tlje court to deduce their purpose from the evidence as a whole. In regard to the other charge, it was admitted by Tilbury that the place where he and Flannagan had left their car* was not an authorised stand for taxis, Flannagan and Tilbury must, therefore, be convicted on that charge. The Magistrate said that the thre* defendants had certainly left their cars, and he had very little doubt that they had done so to look for passengers. There was no very strong evidence of touting, however, and these charge* would be dismissed. In regard to the other charges, Tilbury and Flannagan would be convicted and fined 20s and “ This practice of touting,” said Hi* Worship, “ appears to have sprung up in the past 18 months, and if the appeal is not proceeded with—and lam not shown to have misdirected myself— I shall impose a substantial penaltv in any case of a similar nature which nay come before me in the future.” He added that he had some sympathy with the taxi drivers on _ the Station street stand, as their position was obscured from ’ the travelling public.