CARTERS' LICENSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8487, 11 February 1891, Page 6

CARTERS' LICENSES.

"REVOLT AGAINST THE COUNCIL. The prosecution of a number of carters at the Police Court, yesterday morning, for refusing to take out the Council's licenses, created considerable interest. Inspector Brohnm appeared for the prosecution, and Dr. Laishley for the defence. The first charge was "that against. Daniel Allen, for having stood for hire on the stand set apart lor licensed carters, in Victoria-street, without having any license in force for his cart.

At the opening of the case Dr. Laishley objected to the copy of the by-laws being put in until it had been proved to be a copy of the original. The objection was not, however, pressed, and His Worship promised to make a note of it.

Constable Matbieson deposed that on the 27th January he saw defendant standing in Victoria-street on the space appropriated for the use of licensed carters. Witness asked him if he had a license for the present year, and he replied that he had not. He had taken out licenses in previous years, but this year he had only a registration number. The cart was a two-wheeled e.x press. George Goldie deposed that the defendant had been a licensed carter for a number of years. ' This year there were about 100 licensed carters, whereas last year there were about 200, many carters having objected 'to take out licenses. There is no other form of license except; carters' licenses and the registration of private carts. Witness could not say that the police prosecutions were instituted at the instance of the City Council. Allen had been prosecuted last year, but was not convicted. There were two offences, namely, standing for hire and plying for hire. No licenses are issued for standing for hire, but only the words " plying for hire are mentioned. Witness thought that defendant was guilty of a separate offence every day be stood for hire. The remedy, as far as the Council was concerned, wa3 the payment of 20s, although the permission to "stand for hire'' was not stated in the license. This was the case for ■ the prosecution.

Dr. Laishley- contended that the whole case was fraught with strong objections. In the first place lies maintained that the by-laws had nob been published and approved of as required by sections 191 and 194 of the Act of 1807, and were not therefore legally in existence. He ' further urged that the . by-law in question was unreasonable, inasmuch as it prohibits a man from standing or plying for hire without a license, and yet did not provide a remedy. Anyone could be prosecuted for not holding a license, although there was no provision for issuing a license to him. The license was only issued for plying for hire, and yet defendant was prosecuted for standing for hire, and therefore the Council was in the ridiculous position of being unable to stop prosecutions. Dr. Laishley also urged that the by-law was ultra vires, as the Act prohibited the Council from making a by-law inflicting a penalty of over £5; whereas Mr. oldie had contended that defendant was subject to a penalty for each day he actcd without a license, which would soon bring the amount 1 over £5. Dr. Giles said that the points raised by Dr. Laishley would require some consideration, and would have to be looked into, especially his reference to the approval of the Superintendent of the Province. Ho thought this case would determine all the others, but if any of the others presented .variations they would be considered later on. Inspector Broham said that with regard to the by-law he would like it to be borne in mind that it was simply an adoption of the 13th schedule of the Act of 1867. The case was then adjourned for a week. The following are the other carters prosecuted Harry 11. Swindle}-, John- Haslett, Thomas Hcaley, Henry McGinn, and Malcolm Ramsay. Dr. Laishley will appear for the defence in each case.