INDIVIDUAL FARES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21702, 18 January 1934, Page 12

INDIVIDUAL FARES

JAXIS TO -RACECOURSE

"FLOUTING OF AUTHORITY"

"Th# - No. 2 Transport Licensing iAixtliority j is; being practically flouted by some taxi-drivers in the matter of charging individual fares to the Takapuna races at Deyouport," said Mr. V. N. Hnbblej. whb prosecuted for ' the authority in a series of cases heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Eight drivers were convicted of charg- , :ing individual fares without being in • the possession of an appropriate licence. MrjK Hubble explained that the authority considered that the transport facilities already existing on the North Shore were adequate to cope with the race d<iy traffic, and should be given preferential treatment. Buses and taxis normally plying on the North Shore j were therefore given special ' licences to charge individual fares to the racecourse on race days, but taxis from' the city were granted, by the Derouport Borough Council, only the usual 'l/axi licence precluding the collection of individual fares. Nevertheless, said Mr. Hubble, many city taxis had. ore or less openly evaded the law a>nd were causing great confusion. Evidence was given by men who had . ridden in taxis driven by defendants to the races. It was stated that Is fares had been collected from each person riding in the taxi by one of the /' number, and had then been handed over to the driver. "We do not know whether a body of men all getting into our taxis is really/ one party of friends or not," one of the defendants stated. "The * fare is' handed to us in a lump sum by an individual. I personally always warn people intending to ride in my car that I cannot take individual fares, and 'I have more than otico turned down a load because 1 have seen that the men have not really belonged to the one party." Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., agreed that

tho were faced with a difficulty. He said that in some respects he was sympathetic toward them, and recalled that on a previous occasion ho had dismissed rather similar charges. On appeal by the authority,, however, his decision had been upset' hv the higher Court, which held that the mere fact that tho money was handed over by one person was only a subterfuge if the money had been in effect collected from tin? in-, dividuals of an otherwiso heterogeneous party. Ho therefore had no course but to enter convictions. Tho following were each convicted find fined £2, with costs:—P. U. Barrett, J)'. Chambers, H. A. Chambers, J. Gray, M. E. Mebhan, J. J. Nash, A. E. Perry and A. Taylor.