SUNDAY FLYING

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 268, 27 October 1932, Page 7

SUNDAY FLYING

LEGALITY OF PLYING FOR HIRE NAPIER CHARGE DISMISSED. CASE ON APPEAL MAY BB STATED. The question of the legality of aeroplanes plying for hire on Sunday* was brought up in the Napier Magietrate’s Court this morning before Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, 8.M., when the poli*e proceeded against George Bruce Bolt, aero pilot, of Wellington, who was charged with plying for hire with an aeroplane on Sunday in view of a public place, namely, the Westshore embankment, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Police Offences Act, 1927. His Worship dismissed the charge, stating that he would leave it to the police to arrange for a case to be stated on appeal to the Supreme Court, if they so desired. The prosecution was conducted by Sergt. Daly, while Mr. J. Tattersail appeared on behalf of the defendant, Bolt. Outlining the case for the police, Sergeant Daly said that on Sunday, August 28 last, the defendant, who was an employee of the Wellington Aero Club, carried out a series of passenger flights by arrangement with the Napier Aero Club by means of tickets which had keen sold to intending passenger*, This, the seregant submitted, constituted a breach of a section of th* Police Offences Act. His Worship: Does the defence submit that an aeroplane should bo in- , eluded in the exemptions under the Act I Mr. Tattersail: Yes. His Worship: Do I understand that whatever my decision one side intend* to appeal. Both Sergeant Daly and Mr. Tattersail intimated that that was so. His Worship then enquired whether the facts of the case were in dispute, and on being informed that they wer* not he said that, in view of the con« dieting decisions regarding the question of aeroplanes plying for hire on Sun’ days, aiftl in view of the fact that * Supreme Court decision was desired, he considered that the Crown should bear the cost of an appeal. Mr Tattersall said that he had r*» ceived instructions from the New Ze*» land Aero Club to apply for security, for appeal in the event of an advert* decision. His Worship replied that he proposed to dismiss the charge and leave it t* the parties to arrange a case to be stated on appeal. “I understand that some magistrates have entered conviction* in similar cases, and some have dismissed them,” he added. Mr. Tattersall: I know of no conviction under the section, Your Worship. He went on to refer to decision* given by Mr. Salmon, 8.M., of Wang*, nui, and Mr. Hunt, S.M., of Auckland, when similar cases had .been dismissed. The charge was accordingly dismissed.