HORSE TRANSPORT BY MOTOR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22136, 14 December 1933, Page 12

HORSE TRANSPORT BY MOTOR

NOT A NECESSITY ON SUNDAY A CARRIER CONVICTED. In the City Police Court yesterday morning before Mr J. B. Bartholomew, S.M., Alfred Randle Hucklebridge, a carrier, was charged that on November 12, 1933, he had worked ats his trade in a public place, Gladsionq, road, Mbsgiel, on a Sunday. The charge' arose out of defendant having brought three horses from Christchurch to Wingatui on the Sunday after .the, New Zealand Cup meeting. ,Mr W. P. Hartstonge ,appeared for Hucklebridge, who pleaded not guilty; and Senior Sergeant AlacLean conducted.'the case for the pplicc. The magistrate stated that evidence tor the prosecution had already been given at Mpsgiel. \ Leslie Gerald Hill, secretary of. the Dunedin Jockey. Club, gave evidence that on representations being made by .Tijs club the Railways Department had put on special Sunday trains from WiHgalui. These .representations had originated from the trainers. Evidence was given by Clarence Ray Caffin, secretary of the Forbury Park Trotting Club, that his club had not made representations for special trains on Sunday, but that at' the' request of the Canterbury Owners and Breeders’ Association such trains had been run since 1928. Defendant’s motor float had been regularly used by . Frederick Shaw, horse trainer and owner, Wingatui, who gave evidence to that effect. Witness stated that this method of transport was very good. He much preferred it to the rail on the grounds that it afforded better travelling for the horses, that.it did not involve so much expense, and was. more He could not say .what were the respective percentages of horses, travelling by float and by train.' The Now Zealand Cup meeting had concluded on h Saturday, and .he had brought the horses down by the float on the Sunday. The extra expense of remaining in Christchurch with the three horses till the Monday would have been £7 or £B.

To Senior Sergeant Mac Loan witness said that the greatest reason for sending the horses by float on Sunday was to save the horses and to save expense. Defendant admitted carrying three horses. He had recently been licensed for this work. All his fares were copied from the railway. He had commenced, operating the floats at the request of Mr Gieseler, an owner and trainer at Wingatui. Witness had explained to the police that he had thought he was doing no harm by transporting the horses on a Sunday.

Charles Gieseler stated that he had approached Hucklebridge with a view to the defendant building the float. Evidence along similar lines to that of the former witnesses was also •’ given by Hector Archibald Anderton. Mr Hartstonge said this method of horse transport was an essential part of the defendant’s livelihood. Evidence had‘been given as to its popularity and convenience. It was apparent that convenience, was the outstanding factor, for the same rates were charged as by rail. Practically all meetings concluded on a Saturday and the owners would otherwise be unable to return till the Monday. He submitted that the case could probably be classed as one of necessity.' The evidence had gone to show that pressure had been brought to bear on the Railways Department to’ run special, trains on Sunday. This was a precedent which would show,that the work was necessary. It was not a thing that was not going on regularly every Sunday. Counsel asked that the case should be dismissed on the ground that it was a work of necessity;' : i V, . In regard to counsel’s submission that the transportation of the three horsesfrom Christchurch by motor float was a work of necessity, the magistrate stated that it .would have been possible to get the .three horses south by the special train running on that Sunday, A work of necessity did not mean one that was absolutely necessary, but one that was relatively necessary. He was dealing only with the particular. facts in the case before him, and in yiey of the evidence he did not consider that the work was one of necessity. An offence had been; committed. Defendant was convicted. He 'was fined 10s and ordered to pay costs (10s).