RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4231, 12 October 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Saturday, October 10. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) ’ THOMPSON V. IKE. Judgment was given in the above case, which had been heard on the previous Saturday, judgment then being deferred by His Worship for the purpose of securing time to consider the case. ' _ His Worship said : Having given due consideration to this case, I would gladly enter judgment in favor of the toll-bar did the merits of the case appear to me to justify such a course, for the following reason, viz., that as it appeal’s that the advertisement calling for tenders stipulated that the mail coaches should pay toll, there is little doubt that tenders were sent in with that understanding, and that exemption from toll is a matter w’bich was unexpected by the contractor at the time of taking his contract. But I have to consider and interpret the meaning of the Provincial Amendment Acts of 1872 and 1873. In this the judgment of Mr. Justice Richmond appears to me to give no assistance. Did clause 1 of the Amendment Act of 1872 stand alone, then I am inclined to think that the argument of Mr. Ollivier, founded on the case of Westover v. Perkins, might possibly be couolu sive for the complainant, but, unfortunately for the argument, there follows w 7 hat appears to me to be the damaging admissions contained in the enactments of clause 2 of the same Act. I think it is impossible to put any other meaning upon the clause than an admission by the Provincial Legislature that mail coaches are exempt from toll, and that it w-as its intention that they should be so exempt, otherwise why impose a toll upon passenger’s if the vehicle were liable. The imposition of a toll upon passengers was clearly, and I may say notoriously, intended to apply to passengers by mail coaches and to none others. Then follows the Amendment Act of 1873, by clause 3 of which Act the imposition of the toll of twopence upon passengers is repealed, but no fresh provision is enacted to make mail coaches liable, and clause 1 of the Amendment Act of 1872 remains unrepealed. There is no reason whatever why mail coaches, particularly those carrying passengers, should not pay toll. The only question winch I have to decide is, whether or not they have been exempted by the legislation of the Provincial Council of Wellington. It appears to me that this legislation has exempted them. This is a case which I hope will go to an appeal. This is the third decision which I have given on the same point within a few months, and in each case an appeal was promised, but did not come off. There is another point connected with Mr. Justice Richmond’s judgment which would seem worth consideration, or might be so if other circumstances rendered it necessary. There is a difference between an ordinary tollbar and a ferry. At the latter the ferryman renders valuable assistance, whereas a toll-bar keeper is merely obstructive —his duty is to make the public “ stand and deliver.” Case dismissed with costs.