MOTORS AND THE LAW

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15307, 21 May 1913, Page 5

MOTORS AND THE LAW

TAXI-DRIVERS IN COURT. ENFORCING THE BY-LAWS. THE REFUSAL OF A FARE. Sever, cases of great importance to taxicab drivers and to owners of motor vehicles in general occupied the attention of Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. . A driver named Frederick Norman was charged with having refused a fare when not already . engaged. It appeared that a lady came up to the defendant, whose car was at the head of the rank, and asked him if he was engaged. He replied that he was not, but upon ascertaining that she only wished to- go a short distance he refused to take her. }C. ' The magistrate said that the by-law dealing with a driver's refusal to be hired was of more importance than might seem at first sight. ; For if this by-law were not strictly enforced the by-law fixing the scale cf fares to be charged would be of no effect, as there would be nothing to prevent a. driver from refusing to take a fare until one big enough to suit him came along. The defendant was convicted, .being fined 10s and 7s costs. - \ OVERCROWDING A STAND. The second case concerned a taxi driver named Julian .C. ; Allen.. On the day on which the New Zealand's bluejackets marched through the citv the -defendant drove his car up to the" rank in Lower Quoen Street. The traffic inspector, who happened to be present, told the defendant that the stand was full, and that there was no room for his. car. The defendant's excuse was that his car had a self-starting device which took some little time to operate, and consequently he- was unable to move away at once. The magistrate remarked that he was not at all satisfied with this explanation. He dismissed the case, imposing a penalty of 10s and costs' on a further charge against defendant of having failed to keep oh the left-hand side of the road. [ In this connection, the magistrate remarked that taxicab drivers must hot exercise their discretion and drive on whichever side they thought fit. The by-laws, he said, must.be comDlied with, except m a case where an accident had to bo avoided. CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. V When a motor vehicle changes ownership it is necessary for the owner to notify such change. Hector .Vaughan Johnson was charged with failure to do this, and pleaded ignorance. This was stated to be the first prosecution of the kind under the Motor Reflation Act of 1906. The magistrate said that this case would serve as a warning. He convicted. the defendant and ordered him to pay the costs/ It was pointed out. that -the law requires anyone who acquires or sells a motor vehicle to report the case. The present prosecution was laid in order to give publicity to this little-known fact. MOTOR TRADE PLATES. . REGISTRATION NECESSARY. >. The City Council issues identification plates to trade owners of motor vehicles at a cost of 10s each. The late citv traffic inspector was of the opinion that these trade plates were sufficient as Jong as the vehicles were used' for trade purposes only. But the present city traffic, inspector (Mr. 0. B. Lindsay) is of .the opinion' that,'according to the Motor Regulation Act of 1906, each vehicle used for trade purposes must be separately registered, the ordinary fee for such registration being '- £1. %He therefore brought a test case on this point, William Boyle being charged with driving an unregistered . motor-car. The city traffic inspector, was represented by"; Mr. Stanton, while Mr. Ziman (instructed by Mr. McVeagh) appeared for the defendant. The facts of the case were not disputed, and were that the defendant was driving one of Dexter and Crozier's cars for trade purposes. This car bore the firm's identification plate, issued by the City Council, but no registered number. Both sides argued the legal aspect of the; case at some leneth. . % ■> ■ / • The magistrate in giving judgment said that the defendant, who was emploved by Dexter and Crozier. was found by the city traffic inspector driving on the road a motor vehicle, which was being used for general purposes connected with the firm's business. The car bore the general identification mark of the firm. The defendant was prosecuted under section 16 of • the Motor Regulation Act, which prohibited the use of a motor on a public road without haying it registered. The defendant maintained that the firm's general < identification mark complied with the law. "It is quite clear," continued the magistrate, "that the form of certificate issued with the City Council's ' identification mark might lead the firm to suppose that it could use the identification plate on any cars used for trade purposes? But under the Act every motor must be registered, two exceptions being allowed—(1) when' there has 'been no reasonable opportunity for registration ; and (2) when the car is being • tested after completion or for the benefit of an intending purchaser, in which cases a general trade identification plate is sufficient. Another clause allows for the absence of a registration number, but only when there are. sufficient identification marks already j but this clause does' not say that the car need not be registered." "The only possible defence is under the second exception, does not apply in this case," concluded the magistrate. "The defendant was acting under a misapprehension, and will be convicted without "any penalty." \ ':. The case of Joseph Etenning, which was on all fours with the last one, was decided in a similar manner. The defendant in this case was using his demonstration car to take Captain Halsey.Uo the citizens,' ball. -\