RAILWAY NASH

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 240, 29 September 1930, Page 5

RAILWAY NASH

PRIVATE SERVICE IN COURT TAXIS ALLEGED TO SLY AB BUSES. MAGISTRATE’BDECISION RESERVE). The competition between the Railway omnibuses and the Nath motor service on the Napier-Hastings road has of late aroused considerable public interest, and to-day more was heard of the matter when Malcolm Mclntosh Taylor, the owner of a Nash service car, was charged at the Napier Magistrate’s Court with being the owner of a car licensed by the Napier Borough Council as a motor car, and on August Sth. 1930, plying for hire as a borough omnibus, the vehicle not having been so licensed. Mr. H. B. Lusk appeared for the Railway Department and Mr. L. A. Rogers for the defendant. Mr. Lusk stated that the information was laid because there was unfair competition between the Government bus service, which was subject to the provisions of the Act, and a fleet of cars not licensed as omnibuses but purely as taxi cabs. It was considered that the motor services plying to distant places were not in opposition to the Government buses and were maintaining essential services. The Nash service, however, was of a different nature. These cars ran in front and' behind the buses and were not licensed as omnibuses by the licensing authority. The Nash service ran between Napier and Hastings, and had an advertised timetable. Notices on the cars showed that they were a service running to a timetable. It would bo shown that the tickets were interchangeable with the various cars on the services. The owners of the service applied to the licensing authority for omnibus licenses but were refused them. Securing taxi-licenses, they had carried on the service. The services of a taxicab were entirely different from those of an omnibus.

Mr, Lusk submitted that Mr. Justice Ostler had held that motor sen* vice cars plying over long distanoea should be brought within the meaning of “omnibus.” The defendant had * motor cab license but was doing omnibus work. The defendant’s car could not be held to be n service car doing service car work. Mr. Justice Ostler had pointed out that owing te the nature of their work it would be unfair to class service can aa omnibuses.

His Worship reserved his decision* INSPECTOR’S EVIDENCE. ; Alexander M. OUiver, inspector el motor vehicles for the Napier Boi» ough, stated that the license issued to the defendant, Taylor, on Jung 1 was for a motor cab to carry four passengers. The Napier— Hastings Owner-Drivers’ Car Service previous ly made in March, 1929, application t" "ly under taxi license to cany tag ; ngers besides the driver. Thia ; refused, application was made i rxi licenses to carry four passenger s. Taylor was now plying between Napier and Hastings. The licensing authority had never approved a timetable Tor the Nash service. To Mr Bogers: The Napier Borough Council was not taking proceedings against the services, and he was not aware that the council had been asked to. Tho defendant ran on the Na-pier-Hastings road during 1929 under a taxi license, which was renewed in May last. A total of 87 service cars licensed as motor-cabs were used between Napier and many outside centres. The Government buses had been licensed as heavy traffic omnibuses. He was not aware that thg Government buses were exempt from the petrol tax. To His Worship: The license issued to tho service cars was entirely different from that issued to the. Nash service cars. John Daniel, clerk employed by the New Zealand Railways, stated that on August 5 last ho purchased a return ticket to Clive, leaving the Nash Service's garage in Dickens street, , ADDRESS FOR DEFENCE. Mr Bogers did not call evidence lot the defence, but submitted that the by-law dealing with it was invalid* Counsel quoted a lengthy judgment by Mr Justice Ostler, at Hamilton in which His Honour held that tho bylaw governing service cars was unreasonable. He further said he had yet to learn that a borough counoil had authority to adopt a by-law prohibiting competition in private enterprise. It was the definition that "motor omnibus” included service cars that was held to be unreasonable. Counsel submitted that the case at Hamilton was precisely the position in this case. Tho borough council realised that it had no exaet license to meet tho case. Tho counoil had granted tho defendant a renewal of tho license with which its officials knew he was carrying on tho service. Not a single prosecution had been inado by tbo borough council against the defendant or his associates which showed that it was felt that such would have been unreasonable.