USE OF 'A' MOTOR-CAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20721, 14 November 1930, Page 13

USE OF 'A' MOTOR-CAR.

PASSENGERS ADVERTI3Ef> £OR SHARING OF EXPENSES. T "* NEW PLYMOUTH PROSECUTION. [BIT TELEGRAPFT.—OWN COH REsrONDENT.f] NEW PLYMOUTH. Thursday. The question of the legal stanclinjx of a car-owner who carries passengers on the basis of their sharing expenses was argued in the Magistrate's Court to day, when Elsio Lilian Peters was charged that, being tho owner of a motor-car, she unlawfully permitted it to bo used for a different purpose than that for which it should be used, the full amount of insurance premium payable in respect thereof not, having been paid. Defendant's husband had, on a trip to before tho last test match, taken three passengers, who had shared expenses. Tho point, at issue was whether by his doing so tho car camo under tho classification of "public vehicle" within the meaning of tho Act, in which instance a heavier insurance premium would bo payable. Decision was reserved. Senior-Sergeant Mcßorio stated that the prosecution was in the nature of a test case. Before the trip Peters inserted an advertisement in a newspaper that seats were availablo to Wellington and back. When seen by the police he admitted having taken fhreo people. For the defendant, Mr. A. A. Bennett said it war, common knowledge that advertisements were often inserted in newspapers asking for passengers on a trip and stating that they v,ern to share'expenses. If it was a breach, it was an innocent one as far as the advertisers were concerned, or they would not advertise. Tho most that could be said in this instance was that on an isolated occasion, to reduce expense and provide company for him, tho defendant had permitted her husband to carry passengers. Tho mere fact that a, contribution toward expenses was accepted did not, 1m submitted, make the car a "public vehicle."- It was certainly not plying for hire. The case was very dissimilar from ono recently heard in Auckland, where tho defendant had been making a practice of carrying passengers every week for £1 10s, said counsel. If Mrs. Peters wrre guilty, nobody would legally be able to take a friend for a trip and allow the friend to share expenses. Mr. B. TV. Tate, S.M., said that he rather thought that section of tho Act was framed for the protection of individuals. The question of damage to passengers in the event of accident was also involved.