“ I WON'T PULL OUT.”

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3657, 19 October 1912, Page 6

“ I WON'T PULL OUT.”

WHARF DISPUTE BETWEEN CARTER AND WHARFINGER.

THE SEQUEL IN COURT.

Frank Lowndes, carter, was charged at the Police Court yesterday by Benjamin Hird, wharfinger to the Gisborne Harbor Board, with refusing to leave the wharf immediately on October 13 when ordered to do so, contrary to by-law 54 of the Gisborne Harbor Board. Mr T. Alston Coleman appeared tor the informant, and Mr. Kirk tor the defendant. , Mr. Coleman said that on Sunday, October 13, defendant was on the wharf with his cart delivering luggage, and after he had been there for some time the wharfinger requested him to more on. Defendant liad stated that he had some fares to collect and uas allowed to remain for another quar ter of an hour. The wharfinger again requested him to move, but he had again, refused. All the other carters had obeyed the by-law, and the ease was brought simply to check the practice of carters upsetting the routine of business by unnecessarily delaving. 'Benjamin Hird. wharfinger, stated that Lowndes was on the wharf with his cart inside the Tuatea barricade, and after he had delivered all hut two of the parcels in his cart he (the wharfinger) had asked him to pull out. He asked him to move out at 8.10 and again at 8.30. When told to remove his cart, defendant said: £ Y will not pull out for vou or any other person. He said he had 8s in fares to collect. Later witness got Constable Shaw to speak to defendant, and he had then pulled out. . , , Bv Mr. Kirk: The boat was late that night. Lowndes’ was the only cart on the wharf at the time, and was in the road of any vehicles which might want to come in. None, however, came in that night. Lowndes was usually the last carter on the wharf. Witness had been a. carrier himself and was aware that the hotels had a rule that when a boat left at 7 o’clock the carriers could not receive passengers luggage before 6.45. Defendant’s cart was not in the wav of foot passengers, but was on the wooden wharf all the time and within the barricade. Witness was in charge oi the gate on the night in question, and called out, "Pull out like a good chap.” He had not said. "Here, get out of that.” Defendant had replied, "I won’t pull out; I have Ss to collect in fares, and will not pull out for you or any other person.” Wit ness had had occasion to ask other carters to remove. He had on one occasion to take hold of horses heads and lead them some distance in order that the people could get on to the Tun tea. He understood that on? complaint had been made regarding his management of the wharf, but none by carriers. A Mr. Lvndon had complained that witness had put his hand on a young ladv's shoulder on the wharf. A tally clerk had caught hold of witness by the coat, and had pushed him out of the shed. He had asked Mr. Morse to leave the barricade on one occasion, and bad also requested members of the Harbor Board to leave. He had no animus against Lowndes; they had buried wliat differences they had had in witness’ private house, and it had not been dug up again. . By Mr. Coleman : Had Lowndes' horses bolted; tber would have run down tlie crowd. The system of providing a barricade was comparatively a new one, and Lowndes was to ssra? extent kicking against the pri:ks. Constable Shaw stated that at 8.15 on Sunday, October 13, be had heard the wharfinger request Lowndes to move his cart from within the barricade opposite the Tuatea. Defendant had refused to do so, and made- no attempt to leave. He was rather offensive in his manner, and stated that he wanted to make a test case. The wharfinger had civilly requested defendant- a second time to remove, am. defendant again refused. Defendant then asked witness what he thought of the matter, and witness told him that unquestionably he was committing a breach of the by-law.

By Mr. Kirk: .He did not knvsv where Lowndes went to that night, but he saw him make a rush for tne Tuatea. He believed defendant had to go out to the Tuatea.. Defendanthad had the cheek to actually ask witness to mind his horse while he went to endeavor to collect fares. His Worship asked if carters could not collect fares beforehand, and avoid all this trouble. Mr Kirk, for the defence, held that there was no evidence to prove that Hird had been elected wharfinger by the Harbor Board. Lowndes did the bulk of the carrying work in the town. Tlie beat on the night in question was late, and Lowndes was the last carrier to get- down to the wharf, and felt- positive that no other carriers would come down that night. The wharfinger had exercised his authority in a somewhat offensive manner, and had given an unreasonable order.

Frank Lowndes, carrier, the defendant, stated that on the night in question ho had taken between 20 and 30 lots of people’s luggage to deliver to the Tuatea. He got- to the wharf at 3.10 o’clock. The steamer left at 8.30, and there had been no delay on Witness' part in putting his luggage on to tho tender. When requested to move by the wharfinger witness had shifted his horse and cart about six yards. The wharfinger had again requested him to leave, and although witness had explained that he had money to collect, the wharfinger had called the police. Witness then got annoyed, and t-old the wharfinger that he had lost 30s a short time ago. and was not going to lose Ss that night Lull ini or anyone else. The wharfinger considerably pestered carriers by <"11-st-antly asking them to move a foot this way or a foot the other wav. Bv Mr. Coleman: It was not a factthat- witness wanted to have a monopoly of the carrying business, and was continually causing unpleasantness. Walter Bimiand, carrier, ga.Ve evidence as to wlmt had occurred at the wharf on the night in question. To Ins mind the wharfinger had spoken to defendant as lie should not have done. Defendant, after lie had been spoken to twice- -shifted his cart. Tim wharfinger stopped arguing a lonotime with Lowndes, instead of giving Ins orders in a dignified way By Mr Coleman: Tlie wharfinger was always interfering, and had admitted to witness that he got excited at times and did not know what he was saying.

Mr Kirk, for tlie defence, maintained that defendant had obeyed the wharfinger as far as it was reasonably possible to do, and held that the latter had been inconsiderate on the occasion in question.

1 5°r sI V‘P said tl,at he had no doubt that defendant'had committed

a breach of the by-law In fihe interests of the public and the carriers themselves, someone had to be m auuioritv and if orders were not obeyed it would lead to chaos on the wharf. If people considered the regulations were arbitrary, they should make representations on the matter to the Harbor authorities. _ He was of opinion that if the carriers adopted some better method of collecting charges it would greatly facilitate the despatch of their business at the wharf. Defendant would he fined ss, with costs £1 Bs.