TRANSPORT ACT BREACH

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 October 1933, Page 3

TRANSPORT ACT BREACH

GRANITY FIRM FINED

The first case of its kind on the West Coast was heard at the Magistrate’s Court, Westport, last week, before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., when John Henry Clark, Traffic Inspector for the Main Highways Board, proceeded against James Murphy, taxi-drivei, of granity, and Heelam and Moore, of Granity, bus proprietors, that they did carry on a passenger service otherwise than pursuant to the authority and in conformity with the terms of a passenger license granted under the provisions of the Transport Licensing Act. Mr A. A. Wilson, for the defendant pleaded not guilty. The Traffic Inspector said that according to the regulations it was necessary to have a license to carry passengers when separate fares were charged. In this particular case the defendants picked up two passengers at the Granity station and took them up the hill, a distance of about three miles, to Millerton. Separate fares were charged those passengers. This made defendants’ service a passengei service for which they had not a license. In the case of a licensed taxi a charge was made for the vehicle, for the job, not a charge against each passenger separately. The defendant, Murphy, was the driver for Heelam and Moore.

A. B. Smallholmes, who conducts the licensed passenger service in the locality, gave evidence that he saw three passengers get into the car driven by Murphy on the day of the offence. He actually approached one lady at the station and told her that if she was going up the hill, his car was outside. She replied that she was going up with Mr Murphy that morning. Mr Wilson said the prosecution should call evidence to prove that the passengers paid separate fares. The Traffic Inspector said that according to Section 55 (b) of the Transport Licensing Act, the onus was on the ’defence to prove that separate fares were not charged. He read out the section referred to, which is as Hollows: If it is shown that passengers or goods were carried or drawn by any motor vehicle, such passengers or goods shall be deemed to have been carried or drawn in such a manner as to bring the motor-vehicle under the requirements of the Act, until the defendant satisfies"' the Magistrate to the contrary.”

Replying to the S.M., Mr Wilson said he had no evidence to call. Closing his case the Traffic Inspector referred to the fact that Heelam and Moore had been causing the defendant considerable trouble, owing to the unsatisfactory way in which their services were run. Smallholmes was the licensed operator and had to comply with the requirements of the Transport Board. He had to maintain his vehicles at a certain standard set by the Department, and as all this entailed expense, it was only reasonable that some protection should be given him. He asked the S.M. to note that the defendants were liable to a fine of £lOO or £lO for each day they operated the illegal service, and asked that the cases be treated seriously.

The S.M. said that he had no option but to convict, but as the case was the first of its kind in the district, and a first offence for defendants he would inflict only a nominal fine. Defendants, Heelam and Moore, would be convicted and fined £2 with 10/- costs. He held the proprietors responsible for the offence of their driver, Murphy, and the case against him was dismissed.