TAXI STAND DISPUTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11226, 3 June 1922, Page 10

TAXI STAND DISPUTE

COUNCIL AND DRIVERS APPEAL AGAINST A MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENT. SUPREME COURT HEARING. A case of considerable importance (to Wellington taxi drivers was heard by His Honour Mr Justice Salmond in the Supreme Court yesterday. The matter was an appeal from a judgment delivered by Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M. SIXTY-FIVE TAXI MEN BEHIND HIM. Originally Edwin Charles Young was charged with plying for hire as a taxi driver without a license. _Mr T. M. Wilford, who appeared for Young, said that sixty-five taxi drivers were behind his client in the case. CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM. On the same occasion Mr J. O’Shea, the city solicitor, said that on September 21st of last year it was decided to abolish the existing public taxi stands, and a ballot was taken by the taxi drivers for positions on the various stands in the city, where they were granted permission to remain. This was done because it was found necessary to control the taxi services, and, on the ballot, Young drew a position on a stand at the Government Printing Office, which, on October 13th, he exchanged with a man named Low, by permission of the City Council, for the right of access to a stand in Brandon street. Before the ballot the drivers had been found on all and any of the stands; afteT it they were restricted to their own particular stand. APPLICABILITY OF BY-LAW QUESTIONED. Pursuing the matter further at that hearing, Mr Wilford said the case was of great importance to taxi men. He contended the council had no power to suspend. They had abolished the public stands and granted licenses to the drivers on private stands. But the by-law applied to public stands, none ol which existed now. By its own resolution the council had ended the possibility of a successful prosecution. THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION. The case in the Magistrate’s Court was heard by Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M. In his judgment, Mr Hunt said that the by-law on thfr- subject Empowered the council to suspend or cancel a license. The inspector had said that Young had refused to obey the regulations. “Thi6 power of cancellation must be arbitrarily used,” His Worship said, “and I do not think it has been so used in this case. The licensing and control of taxi cabs and their drivers is peculiarly within the provinoe of the local authority. It is the best judge of what system of control shall be enforced in this city, and, if this private stand system appears to it to be the most suitable for the community, it must be observed. By-laws, it is said, are to be benevolently construed, and I am of opinion that the defendant foung, in deliberately flouting this regulation, is in fault. He is convicted and fined 10s, and costs 75.” At the hearing of the appeal yesterday Mr H. F- Johnston appeared for the appellant and Mr H Buddie represented the respondent I Mr H. Buddie, addressing the j court, spoke of the by-laws and resolu- ! tions of the City Council restricting a j person from driving without a license; ■ and the council, he said, in the inter- ] ests of the drivers and of traffic, had also established these stands. There I was, maintained counsel, no provision I in the by-laws restricting the driver to any one particular stand; but the council had stopped at setting up private stands. His Honour asked what was the difference between a private stand and a public stand. ! Mr Buddie said there was no defim- | tion on the subject. He had, however, no doubt about the council’s power in that respect, and the purpose of the driver’s entry into the ballot was so that he could occupy only one stand. Each man entering the ballot, he added, impliedly sanctioned and agreed to the council’s granting licenses for his own and for the other stands. His Honour: Then your argument is that Young is bound by a condition imposed by the council and accepted by him; and that, when he broke that condition, the council was justified in revoking or cancelling his license? Mr Buddie: Yes, Your Honour. WHAT WAS THE REASON? His Honour then wanted to know what was the reason at the back of the regulation restricting the taxidriver to one particular stand? It seemed to him, he said, that the ballot system might too easily give one man a very good stand at the expense of other men, who, although equally entitled to a good stand, might get only inferior stands. Mr Johnston said he did not think the taxi-cab drivers would object if all the stands were done away with. His Honour asked to be referred to the by-law prohibiting a taxi-driver from standing for mqje than a certain length of time in any one particular spot, and also the by-law as regarded loitering. Some of these by-laws being rend by counsel, His Honour caught the word “unattended” in. connection with a car standing on the street, and asked to have that by-law read again. His Honour: Then, so long as the driver sits in the car, he can keep his cab ,therc the whole day—is that it? Is there any real ground for the restriction of a taxi-driver to any one part of the highway? The statute does not allow a public body to attach conditions to a license to use a highway, as though it were its own property, like a Town Hall, with which, of course, a council can do what it likes. Counsel for respondent replied that the City Council had considered these private stands would alio;* business to be carried on better; and that in this argument the taxi-drivers themselves bad concurred. Mr Johnston maintained that the resolution of the council supplementary to’the by-law went beyond the powers conferred by the by-law or by the statute. He submitted that the City Council had no right to fix individual stands for taxi-drivers ip any part of the city. The by-law affected the matter of licensing only under its own provisions, and not under such an agreement as was made with the taxiowners. Finally, contended Mr Johnston, the council had no right to leave any of the conditions so vague that nobody knew what was their direction or the correct procedure. It was quite true, also, added counsel, that, as stated in the morning papers, in bringing this case to ascertain his client’s position arid the position of the City Council, he was representing sixty-five

car-owners of Wellington, whose future | was in jeopardy. . ■ I His Honour, after asking to be supplied with full copies of the City j Council’s by-laws auecting taxi-cabs, intimated that he would reserve his decision.