USE OF WRONG STAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19695, 23 January 1926, Page 2

USE OF WRONG STAND.

BUS DRIVER CONVICTED. MAGISTRATE’S RESERVED JUDGMENT. Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., delivered his reserved judgment in the case in which Stanley Oaird was proceeded against by the Dunedin City Corporation for having allowed his motor-bus to remain stationary to ply for hire, other than on an authorised stand for that particular class of vehicle. At the previous hearing of the case, it was" stated that although defendant was plying for hire to the Exhibition, ho had taken on passengers at a stand reserved for Portobello buses. It was contended by Mr B. S. Irwin who defended Caird, that according to the wording of the by-law ir' 7 bus could start from that stand. In delivering judgement, the magistrate stated that defendant had admitted that his motor-bus, which was not engaged in plying to and from the Otago Peninsula, was, on January 4, on the stand in Lower High street, known as the Portobello stand. This stand was fixed by a resotion of the Dunedlin City Corporation on December 17, 1925, and advertised in the Evening Star of December 18, to he used solely by* all buses plying to and from the Otago Peninsula. The defendant had contended that his bus was at a duly appointed stand for the particular class of vehicle far which he held a licence. The resolution of December 17 was made under by-law No. 1, and not under by-law 17, and purported to appoint, inter alia, a stand for buses plying to and from the Peninsula. It was clearly not the intention to appoint tho stand for buses generally, and his Worship was unable to see defendant could claim that the stand in question was a duly appointed stand under Section 5 of By-law 17. It might be open to question whether the stand was a properly appointed one, but this hardly affected the present proceedings. Tlie defencVmt was clearly inside the class for which the district by-laws proposed to grant sites, but the fact that no rights were properly granted did not help him. The control of traffke on stands within its jurisdiction was essentially a matter for the Dunedin City Council which had ample enacting powers; and the courts must be extremely reluctant to interfere with any by-laws, unless they were manifestly unreasonable, provided they wore made in accordance with the powers delegated to the Corporation. It might not bo out of place to suggest to the Corporation the advisibility of qonsolidating tho by-laws dealing with motor traffic, as the majority of drivers of motor vehicles were only too anxious to observe tho by-laws, but often erred through ignorance. The city by-laws should be cheaply and readily available to motorists. As this was the first case under the Dunedin by-laws, defendant would be convicted only