“A GROWING NUISANCE”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22628, 20 July 1935, Page 2

“A GROWING NUISANCE”

TAXI DRIVERS IN COURT TOUTING CHARGES DISMISSED “ These proceedings have been brought in an endeavour to check a growing nuisance which has arisen at the Railway Station,” said Mr A. N. Haggitt, when three taxi drivers appeared before Mr H. W. Bundle, 8.M., in the City Police Court yesterday on charges of plying for hire off their, appointed stands and leaving their vehicles to tout for hire. The defendant! were Edward Joseph Flannagan and Wilfred Herbert Tilbury, who were charged on both counts, and Robert Gibson, who was charged only with leaving his vehicle to tout for hire. Mr Haggitt appeared for the City Corporation Traffic Department, and Mr N. J. Anderson represented the defendants, all of whom pleaded not guilty. . Mr Haggitt said that complaints naa been received from private car owners, travellers, and other taxi men who believed in fair competition. At the request of the taxi drivers, a parking place bad been provided in Station street, but when trains came in other taxi-men whom he might describe as “ pirates or buccaneers” were accustomed to swoop down” and endeavour to take business from others who had waited on the proper stands. The charges were brought under the section of the city by-laws which forbade taxi drivers .to their vehicles to tout for business and the section which made it an offence to leave a taxi at a place other than an authorised 6tf ln d T932, Mr Haggitt continued, five taxi drivers had been convicted on similar charges, and notice of appeal had been given. This appeal had never been pro*ecuted, however, and he thought that he was entitled to be told whether it was intended to go on with the appeal. .- Mr Anderson said that while the appeal was pending it was found that if an adjustment could be made to the Station street stand there would be no need to appeal. This, adjustment involved the making of a white line, beyond which the taxis would not be permitted to pass. He thought that this had actually been working for a time. If this system were not found satisfactory, he presumed that he would be instructed to go on with the appeal. . , _ _ _ Evidence was given by Traffic Inspector Thurston, who said that on June 24, with Inspector Munro, he had gone to the Railway Station at about 5.25 p.m. He saw Flannagan, Tilbury and Gibson standing inside the station gates at the north end of the platform.. Flannagan's car and that of Tilbury were standing near the end of the station, but Gibson's car was on the stand in Station street. To Mr Anderson, witness said that it would not be correct to sav that there were no passengers coming from the station. If the defendants said the time was 5.35 that would be wrong. ■ ‘ Traffic Inspector Munro gave evidence along similar lines. To Mr Anderson he said that a traffic officer was needed at the station whenever trains were arriving. Mr Haggitt: That is a counsel of perfection. _ . Mr Anderson said the evidence did not prove that there had been any touting or soliciting, and he submitted that the charges in this respect must fail. Robert Gibson said that when the tram came in he and Tilbury were talking, neav their cars. They saw no likely fares coining from the station and they strolled un to the edge of the platform. Ejjanuagan had not been with them. His car was left near Tilbury’s. Flannasran would be almost back to his car when the inspectors arrived. The time could he 5.35 find they had then given up .all hope of getting any business. Insnector Munro, when talking to them later, said that he had been instructed to get some eases to bring the pending appeal, tc a head. Tilbury corroborated the evidence of the' previous witness. ■ Mr Anderson said that the words of the by-law—“ while standing, waiting, or plying for hire ”•—governed the situation. He submitted that the evidence did not, bear out - the charges. Mr Haggitt said that the defendants admitted leaving their vehicles, and he submitted that they could have done so for onlv one purpose. It was open to the court io deduce their purpose from the evidence as a whole. In regard to the other charge, it was admitted by Tilbury that the place where he and I lannagan had left their cars was not an authorised stand for taxis. Flannagan and Tilbury must, therefore, be convicted ou that charge. , , The,magistrate said that the three defendants had certainly left their cars, , and he had very little doubt that they had done so to look for passengers there was no very strong evidence of touting, however, and these charges would be dismissed. In regard to the other charges. Tilbury and Flannagan would be convicted and fined 20s and costs. “This practice of touting, said his Worship, “ appears to have sprung up m the past IS months* and if the appeal is not proceeded with—and I anj "°t shown to have misdirected myself 1 shall impose a substantial penalty in any case of a similar nature which may come before me in future.” He added that he had some svspathy with the taxi drivers on the Station street stand, as their pqsi-. tion was obscured from, the travelling public.