MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 August 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMQUTH cases.

Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided at a sitting of the Greymouth Magistrate s Court to-day. The'police were represented by Senior-Sergeant C. h Roach. « r Two first offenders found on licensed premises after statutory hours, were- convicted and each ordered to pay 10/- costs. A second offender -vyas fined £l> wfth costs 10/A first offender, found in a state- of drunkenness in Mawhera Quay yesterday afternoon, was convicted and ordered to forfeit 5/-, the amount of his bail. Percy James Jack, who' appeared, was fined 5/- for riding a bicycle in Shakespeare Street, on August 20, after dark, without having a light attached. W. Baltimore, for a similar offence in Bright Street, was fined 5/-, with 10/- costs. DANGEROUS DRIVING. Ernest Reid Cook, who did not appear, 1 was charged with °angerpjia driving, on July 29, the information filing laid by the Traffic Inspector, John, Henry Clarke.. The -Inspector stated that he was driving his’ car behind a motor vehicle being driven by defendant, on the afternoon of July 29, on the Gladstone Road. Defendant was travelling at a high rate of speed, and witness endeavoured to overtake him, but the faster witness drove his car, the faster defendant travelled. When passing the Paroa Hotel, witness’s car was registering 35 miles per hour. There was a school a little further on, and ( some 20 children were scattered along the road, at the time. In following defendant, witness had tp register 48 miles per hour. Witness considered it to be a case of dangerous driving, and children called for protection from speeding motorists. The notice near the school restricted speed to 15 miles per hour. Richard Spencer, roadman, stated that he remembered a car passing him at a high speed on the aftdrnobn of July 29. There were children on the road at the particular time, 3.45 p.m , and witness considered that t}ie pace at Which defendant was travelling, to be a dangerous pace. Defendant' was convicted and lined £3, with costs 15/-,' and witness expenses 12/-. 'WINGHAM PARK TRAFFIC..

Charged that on August 10, at Coal Creek, they did operate heavy motor vehicles on the Westport-Greymouth road, licensed for the carriage of passengers, and carrying a greater number' of passengers than such vehicles were licensed to carry, under thfi heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations, 1932, several Greymputh motor bus proprietors pleaded hot guilty. Defendants were, .fames Kennedy and John James Kennedy, Herbert McGlmshan, Dudley Pollard apd Kennedy Bros, amf Reginald Stephen Whlls. The informations yfere laid by the 'yrpflac Inspector, Mr T. F. Brosnan appeared for Jamies and John Kennedy, and Pojlard and Kennedy Bros. McGlashan and Wells conducted their own defence.'

John Henry Clarke, Traffic Inspector, employed by the Main Highways Board Stated that on August 10, he. was on duty at Wingham Park. Defendant, James Kennedy arrived with a registered “bus' at the Park gates. When'the bus stopped, witness count ed 28 passengers disembarking,', a driver and conductor, making a total of 30. The bus was licensed to carry only 21 passengers including the driver.’ The fee paid for 21 persons amounted to £8 18/6. When applying for passenger service license, defendant applied for a certificate for seated, and standing passengers. In March Kennedy Bros were advised by an authorised .officer for the district that the machine was fit to carry 21 seated, and 7 standing passengers, and the driver, making a total of 29. If they desired to carry standing passengers the fee would be £l2 '6/6. To Mr Brosnan: August 10 was the afternoon on' which the English League team played the West Coast. The attendance at the Park numbered between 2000 and 30,00. There was nothing unsafe in 30 passengers being aboard. Witness counted th® passengers at 2.30 p.m. He was proceeding under the Heavy Traffic License, which was applicable, to a vehicle operating In any part of New Zealand. He was pot so much concerned With the overloading as in respect to the fees paid. He had issued warnings to bus proprietors, about overloading, some three weeks ago. On a previous occasion he had noticed overloading at Wingham Park. On August 10 the biggest ‘ number of people at the football match travelled by private car. Pollard’s bus carried a totaLl' of 29 passengers. The fee for 20 passengers as applied for by Pollard, amounted to £0 7/6, and had he applied for license to carry 29, passengers the increase in the fee would be. considerable. He was on the near side of both itennedy and Pollard’s buses, when "he counted the passengers. Witness pointed out that any evasion of fees by motor bus proprietors would defeat local bodies of monies due to them through the actual number of passengers carried. The Magistrate stated that that was a matter for the local bodies, should they desire to take proceedings themselves.

William Kennedy, motor bus proprietor, stated that the Inspectoi’ had approached him and warned witness that if he caught any driver overloading he would, prosecute. Witness did not know there had been any overloading; the first lie knew of .such, being on receipt of the summons. A seasonal service was conducted to Wingham Park. The average number carried on the buses totalled 14 or 15. A license had not been obtained for standing passengers, as the certificate showed only “seating passengers.” On ordinary football days the number ol passengers carried would average only six.

To the Inspector: No mention was made on the license of seated passengers. He would say the Inspector was wrong, if he stated that witness himself had carried an overload. Witness admitted that packed buses had been driven on occasions, but not since the warning had been issued. Dudley Pollard, motor bus driver, stated that when he was about to leave town for Wingham Park on August 10, there were 17 persons in the bus, hut others “climbed aboard” as the bus started. He did not know at the time, how many passengers there were. The Inspector cpunted the passengers as they alighted at Wingham Park. On the regular run to Karoro, there -was no overloading of the buses.

To the Inspector: Witness accepted the responsibility of overloading. He did not mention it to his ® rin - James Kennedy, motor bus d 2ZyjT’ stated that he drove a bus to Windham Park on August 10- The bus> coSd have carried its 30 passengers with safety. He was informed by his brother that the Inspector had issued a warning against overloading. TO UNDERSTAND ACT. Mr Brosnan submitted tha t the information against the dismissed, as the proprietors did not have any knowledge of overloading. Before they could permit the.buses.to not permitting it. So far drivers were concerned, counsel pointed out-that the legislation was new to the people, who had tP. feel their way,” and cases in the Dominion were all helping them to more pearly understand the Act. He submitted that the Highways Transport licenses were ’ 'issued; hot to catch isolate breaches such as before Court, but*'to protect the roads from deliberate overloading. There must be a ‘deliberate attempt- to evade payment of the fees by running unlicensed services. ‘lt was obvious that there was no such intent on the part of the defendants. He submitted that the defendants had acted rightly in taking the people to the Park providing that they did so with safety, as on August 10. ' ’ ■_ ' > The Inspector snbmitted that there had been a breach of the regulations so far as they .covered the carriage of passengers. He did not admit that a bus could carry 22 seated passengers,

and seven standing passengers, simply because it had a certificate of mechanical'fitness to carry that number. A fee of £ 3 whs paid for the certificate of fitness. If a bus licensed upder the Heavy Motor Vehicles Act, to carry 21 passengers, carried 22 seated, and 7 standing passengers, then a breach was committed. A bus was entitled to carry only thp number of passengers for which fees had been paid, which, in the two cases, were 2Q and 2.1 respectively. Tne legislation was not new, for it had been in operation since March, 1927. The fact that defendants had applied for bo,th seating and standing capacity under the Transport Act, indicated the fact that they intended to carry passengers when offering. He,submitted that they should pay for the higher license. He had received complaints of over-load-ing on the Greymouth-South Beach route by 'defendant’s buses, but no action had been taken by him so far. The idea in prosecuting was to impress upon those operating buses, that it is necessary to pay extra fees if they carry more than the licensed v numbei ; of passengers. The Magistrate reserved judgment. In the case against Herbert McGlashan, the Iqspector stated tfiat on the ; arrival’of defendant’s bus at Wingham Park, he counted 38 passengers alighting. The fees paid on the particular vehicle, for one quarter, amounted to Ha,d defendant paid the fees due for carrying 3.8 passengers, the total would have amounted to £l5/18/9. That was the maximum fee so for as passengers were concerned. Witness counted 35 adults, five boys, and U driY e F» but ne counted two boys as'being equal to one adult. To defendant: fitness warned ' defendant against carrying standing passengers. The fact that defendant had a temporary licence to carry 28 seated, and nine standing passengers, did not come under the jurisdiction of witness. That was a, Transport Board license, and witness was proceeding under the Heavy Trafiic regulations. Only on one occasion had defendant had a temporary license issued to him. Defendant: Do you know that in this town, at the present time, motor buses are being operated without a license? The S.M.: You need not answer that question. That has nothing to do with this case.

Witness admitted that defendant had raised no objection to paying the fees, if it was proved that legally he had a right to do so. Herbert McGlashan, defendant, stated that he did not carry th® number of adult passengers said to have been carried by the Inspector. Witness counted his passengers which numbered 21 adults and eight children. Ho applied to the Public Works Department for a temporary license to carry 28 seated and 9 standing passengers. Witness had been previously refused' a temporary license as Kennedy Bros, were operating on the route, and considered their transport sufficient. He obtained a temporary license, by paying 2/6 into the Consolidated Hund, which entitled him to ply for hire on August 10. There was no deliberate attempt to evade the regulations, qu the part of witness.

Decision was Reginald Stephen Wells pleaded guilty ip a simHar charge. The Inspector stated that defendant had arrived at Wingham Park with a registered bus, carrying 28 passengers, and a driver. The heavy traffic license he had entitled d^end an t tp carry only .20 including the driver. The fee paid amounted to £6/7/6, but the number carried demanded a fee of £lO/12/(J. The particular however, was not mechanically fitted to carry more than 21 seated, and three standing passengers, and a driver. Defendant stated that he would plead guilty, as he had counted the number of his passengers. The Magistrate said that as he was reserving judgment in the other similar cases, he would suggest that defendant withdriuy his plea of guilty, and make it a plea of not guilty. This defendant agreed to, and decision was reserved.