A TAXI-DRIVER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11250, 30 June 1922, Page 6

A TAXI-DRIVER

COUNCIL’S BY-LAWS. APPEAL DISMISSED. Judgment was yesterday given by His Honour Air Justice Salmond in the case of Edwin Charles Young r. James Doyle. Air Johnston appeared for appellant, and Air Buddie for respondent. BREACH OP BY-LAWS. Hie Honour said this was an appeal by way of case stated from a conviction of a breach of the by-laws of the city of Wellington. The offence of the appellant was that of plying for hire as a taxi-cab driver on the 11th day of July, 1921, without a license. The facts were as follow: The appellant had for some years been a licensed taxicab driver in Wellington, and had been entitled as such to use any of the public stands appointed for taxi-cabs by the City Council. In October, 1920, the council established by resolution a new system whereby every licensed driver was restricted to a single stand specifically allotted to him. CONDITIONS OF LICENSE. After the establishment of this system the appellant in due course took out his annual license as a taxi-cab driver for the year commencing on the Ist day of April, 1921. This license was issued to him ou the express condition that he should only use the one stand allotted to him. He accepted tho license, hut protested against the attached condition as unreasonable nnd ultra vires. In pursuance of this protest ho continued to use such stands os he pleased, and refused to conform to tho new system as established by the council. The council, thereupon, after notifying and hearing the appellant, cancelled his license on July 7th, 1921. Notwithstanding this cancellation tho appellant continued his business as a taxi-cab driver, and was prosecuted accordingly for the offence of plying for hire without a license. The council’s power of cancelling a license, saidl His Honour, was conferred by clause 63S of the city by-laws. Tho appellant had not been convicted of nn offence, but because of his wilful refusal to obey the condition attached to lus license lie was ‘’deemed by the courun 1 unfit to bold a license,” and bis license was cancelled on this ground. THE COUNCIL’S POWER. His Honour suggested that if the appellant desired a judicial determination as to tho council’s power to impose tho condition to which he objected, it would seem that his proper remedy was to apply to tho council for a new and unconditional license for the now current year; and if such a license was refused, then to proceed for a mandamus requiring the council to hear and determine his application. according to law. His Honour would express no opinion whatever on the merits of tho appellant’s contention as to tlio powers of tho City Council; but would dispose of the appeal exclusively on the ground that such a contention could not be raißcd in the present proceedings. Tho appeal wa« accordingly, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent the costs of the appeal, £5 ss.