COMMUNITY CARS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19736, 8 September 1927, Page 13

COMMUNITY CARS.

DEFINED AS OMNIBUSES.

CITY COUNCIL BY-LAW UPHELD.

MAGISTRATE IMPOSES FINE. The by-law of the Auckland City Council including community cars within the denniti in of omnibuses, but rendering them ineligible for omnibus licences because they cannot comply with certain structural requirements, is not unreasonable, according to a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. The case was that in which Harold D. Retter (Mr. Schramm) was charged with owning an unlicensed omnibus. Mr. Mackay appeared for the Auckland City Council. The magistrate said defendant was using a number of motor-cars to carry on a passenger service between the Chief Post Office and Dominion Road and carried passengers at separate fares. The bylaws defined an omnibus as a vehicle plying for hire for the conveyance of • passengers at separate /ares, and required it to be licensed and defined its construction and equipment. A motor-car did not comply with the requirements of the by-law. It would not, therefore, be registered as an omnibus. The effect of this was that a motorcar could be licensed as a taxi, but in order to carry passengers at separate fares it would be required to be licensed as an omnibus. It was constructionally not an omnibus, and therefore a taxi could not carry passengers at separate fares. The defendant contended it was not reasonable to prevent a taxi from carrying the number of passengers it could conveniently accommodate at separate fares, and that the by-law was unreasonable in so far as it had that effect. Defendant was using motor-cars on a particular route, picking up and setting down passengers along that route, and carrying them at separate fares. That was the work of an omnibus as the word omnibus implied. The defendant could not, therefore, complain that his vehicle was defined as an omnibus, and his objection must go to the constructional requirements of an omnibus with which his vehicle did not comply. No objection was offered to the section of the by-law which set out these requirements. A taxi was a vehicle licensed to ply for hire to carry individual hirers on any journey within the district. The passenger hired the vehicle for his journey and if the driver of a taxi had the right to pick up other passengers it would be an invasion of the hirer's rights. There was nothing to prevent several persons agreeing to hire a taxi between them, but to conform with the ordinary view of a taxi this must be at the hirer's option, and the driver should not have the right after accepting a hiring from one passenger to pick up other passengers whether the first was willing or not. Although the definition of omnibus given in the by-law seemed very wide nothing, had been brought forward to show that its effect was unreasonable. The defendant was therefore using a vehicle as an omnibus when it was not licensed as such and he must be convicted. Defendant was fined £6, with costs.