CONTRACT BUS TRIP

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21576, 22 August 1933, Page 12

CONTRACT BUS TRIP

COUNTRY DANCE PATRONS PROSECUTION OF COMPANY EXEMPTION FROM ACT CLAIMED [by telegraph—own* correspondent] WHANGAREI. Monday An interesting ciise was beard in tlio Polico Court to-day. The transport inspector, Mr. J. B. AshtOn, proceeded against the Northern Bus Company, Limited, on charges of carrying more passengers on a bus between Wbangarei and Maungakaramea on July 20 than the vehicle was licensed to carry, and running the vehicle for the transport of passengers for separate fares without being duly licensed For the defendant, Mr. L. Johnson said it was admitted that the bus driver collected Gd each from passengers on the trip. The bus was to run to take people to a dance at Maungakaramea. An advertisement was inserted in a newspaper by the dance committee stating the bus would run at a cost of Gd a head. The bus was licensed as a passenger lorry and on this trip carried more than the number provided for. Contentions by Defence Henry Seddon Hills, secretary to the No. 1 Transport Licensing Authority, in said that on the date in question the bus concerned did not have a temporary licence to run to Maungakaramea. Mr. Johnson said that under section '2l of the. Transport Act permission without a temporary licence was granted to contract vehicles on special occasions, provided the owner of. the service did not advertise the trip. In this case, the dance committee advertised the running of the bus and the company received a contract price for the trip, irrespective of the number of passengers. The question of the rights of the dance committee was not before the Court. No tickets were issued by the driver of the bus, and the amount collected was handed over to the dance committee secretary, said counsel. This practice had been going on to a large extent among country dance committees, who were prepared to run a bus at a loss in order to attract guests. If it was held that the trip was a contract it came under the heavy traffic licence.

Question of Overloading Tiio Magistrate, Mr. G. N. Morris: Do you suggest that gives exemption from overloading? Counsel said that in those circumstances an owner could overload as the bus was not under the Transport Board's jurisdiction. In cases of football teams it was quito common. All that was required was a certificate of fitness. Evidence was given by bus company offiriais. The magistrate said one point was that the agency for the collection of the fares might bring the defendant within the law. The trip run was not in opposition to an organised road service, which made all the difference. The Transport Board solicitor, Mr. •T. F. S. Briggs, said the defendant company was a party to an offence in collecting fares. The company was well aware that it was running an unlicensed trip. It really was a subsidised' passenger service. Mr. Morris said it appeared that th" dance committee was tho principal and the bus company was an accessory. It was not usual to prosecute accessories and he,objected to this being done when the principals were available. As T(fgards overloading, there seemed to bo more merit in that charge. Mr. Johnson submitted that the regulations for licenced passenger services did not apply to contract vehicles, and in consequence no overloading could take place. He admitted there should be some supervision, especially with travelling sports teams, but the Act did not provide for it. The magistrate reserved decision on both charges.