BUS STANDS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19687, 14 January 1926, Page 3

BUS STANDS.

AN “UNREASONABLE”

BY-LAW

VICTIMISATION ALLEGED.

The validity and reasonableness of the by-law relating to bus stands was questioned in the City Police Court yesterday morning, when two drivers we charged before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., with plying for hire at places other than the authorised stands. It was contended that private bus owners were being victimised by the City Corporation, which was not fairly and reasonably applying the by-law. . ~, „ The first case was that in which Henry Lister was charged with allowing his vehicle to remain stationary while pi} - ing for hire in Stuart street, which was not a duly appointed stand for such a purpose. . , Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the defendant, and Mr H. E. Barrowclough for the City Council. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Barrowclough stated that defendant was seen to take up his stand in Stuart street just above the Octagon, iherewas an authorised stand in the Octagon, but hone in Stuart street. Defendant s bus bore on its side a sign intimating that it was undertaking observation trips, and that it started from Lower Rattray street. The bus remained in Stuart street tor 40 minutes, picking up passengers. By-law 17, section 3, provided, that the owner ox driver of any carriage licensed to ply for hire should not allow it to stand in any street which was not duly authorised for the purpose. The City Council had the power by resolution to appoint or abolish stands. On October 24 the corporation had appointed a stand outside the Town Hall for the use of its own buses engaged on observation trips. Private buses were sometimes engaged by the council, but this had not happened on the occasion in question. The council had the power to exclude private vehicles from the stand. George Arthur Lewin, town clerk, said that at 9.20 a.m. on January 7 he saw the defendant drive his bus up Stuart street, turn round, and take up his position at a point just above the Cathedral gate#. Defendant remained there from till 10.10. While he was there he must have picked up 14 or 15 passengers. Another bus also belonging to the Transport Tourist Company came up behind Lister, and its passengers were transferred into his bus. There was no stand in Stuart street above the Octagon, and if one were requested the application would be refused. It was the starting place of the Kaikorai trams, and also was in a line with the correct route into the Octagon. As there was also a parking place for private cars in the Octagon and a stand in front of the Town Hall, it would be positively dangerous to allow buses to ply for hire in Stuart street. An application for a stand for private buses had been made to the City Council, Lower High stteet being named in the letter. A stand had been granted in Lower Rattray street opposite the Queen’s Gardens. In reply to a protest from Mr Irwin that the stand in Lower Rattray street had not been properly authorised, Mr Barrowclough stated that the position had been appointed a stand by the traffic inspector while members of the City Council were absent and was quite legal, in spite of Mr Irwin’s heated and hurried arguments to the contrary. Mr Lewin, cross-examined by Mr Irwin, stated that on one or two occasions private buses had been engaged by the tramway department. Mr Irwin: The only place where private buses can leave is from the Exhibition stand in Stuart street? Witness: No, they can leave from Lower Rattray street. Mr Irwin: But how can they leave from there when it has not been duly appointed a stand? The Magistrate stated that legally the place had not been authorised as a stand. Mr Irwin: The corporation fixes a stand for its own buses and allows others on for 20 per cent, of their takings. Mr Lewin: That is a distorted way of putting the facts. The tramway department contracted with other buses to do the work. Mr Irwin: We’ll get a witness who knows something of the facts later. I want to cross-examine one. ' William Handel Mackenzie, Dunedin City Corporation tramways manager, stated that in • consequence of heavy booking he approached Lister, among others, and asked him to make the trip to Waipori. He was to be allowed 8s per passenger. All were booked and put into Lister’s bus. The corporation had certain overhead charges, including advertising, which it thought it had a right to deduct. Mr Irwin said that the private buses were being victimised by the corporation. The only stand from which they could start was at the eastern side of the Queen’s Gardens. There was no other available. The corporation appointed a nice stand in the Octagon and reserved it for its own buses. Privately-owned buses had either to run to the Exhibition or cease operating. The by-law was being unreasonably applied. He submitted that the corporation had no right to gave preference to its own buses, and was liable to be charged with unreasonably applying the by-law. When the corporation found that it did not have enough buses it took Is in the £ from the private vehicles The by-law was ultra vires, because it purported to give preference to corporation buses. . , , Mr Barrowclough objected that preterence had not been given to corporation buses, as the stand had been appointed on October 24, and the earliest application for a position there had been received on December 10. The Defendant, in evidence, admitted that he had taken up his stand in btuart Street. He had had previous arrangements with the tramway department to pick up passengers. He was to collect the fares and pay the City Corporation 20 pel’ cent, of his takings. The Magistrate said that the main defence was that the by-law was ultra vires, in that the stand had been appointed for corporation buses only. The by-law must act reasonably. The corporation had no right to use it to the detriment of private enterprise. He was unable to say if the appointment of the stand in the Octagon was unreasonable, but in any case it hardly affected the present prosecution. Defendant, however, had committed a breach of the by-law, but the magistrate thought that a conviction would meet the case. A SIMILAR CHARGE. Stanley Caird (Mr Irwin) was charged with allowing his vehicle to remain stationary while plying for hire on other than an authorised stand. He also pleaded not guilty. Mr Irwin stated that defendant had taken on passengers on the stand reserved for Portobello buses. He contended that according to the wording of the by-law any bus could start from that stand. Ho thought that the defendant had erred in good company, for he had followed corporation bus No. 9 on to the stand. Mr Barrowclough stated that the corporation bus was returning from the north. It dropped its passengers, and then went on. The stand was reserved particularly for time-table buses, the reason being obvious. Even if the corporation had no power to appoint a stand for Portobello buses it would not affect the defendant’s case, for under those circumstances he was liable to prosecution for plying for hire at a place where there was no stand. Mr Irwin: It is not fair that because the corporation makes a mistake the defendant should bo prosecuted for it. Mr Bundle said he was not quite sure that there had been any offence. However, he would reserve his decision. He thought that whatever the decision might be. the corporation would adjust matters. Mr Irwin was heard to say something about the corporation having a lot of matters to adjust.