REFUSAL TO PAY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27018, 1 March 1949, Page 6

REFUSAL TO PAY

TRAM PASSENGERS CHARGED COURT PROCEEDINGS Joint legal submissions were made by Mr J. P. Ward and Mr A. J. H. Jeavons for four defendants, Leslie Collins, B. Hamilton, Robert Thomson and Arthur Quinn, who appeared in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J. D. Willis, S.M., charged with having avoided paying a fare on the Anderson’s Bay line by producing a concession ticket. Argument regarding the powers of the Price Tribunal was heard, and it was contended that the Control of Prices Act had not conferred sufficient powers on the tribunal to justify its orders over-riding the Tramways Act. All four defendants pleaded not guilty. Quinn was represented by Mr Ward and the other three defendants by Mr Jeavons. After lengthy argument, the magistrate reserved his decision. Mr A. N. Haggitt, who appeared for the Dunedin City Corporation, stated that in October, 1935, and again in February, 1948, the Price Tribunal had granted certain increases, and authority was also granted for the reduction in the number of rides on concession tickets. This was done and facilities were provided for the redemption of tickets. The travelling public gradually became used to the new scale but some persons had refused to pay and claimed they had the right to use the unused balance of their tickets. These people were acting in quite a bona fide manner, but it raised an important question as far as the City Corporation was concerned. Evidence was given by the City Corporation engineer-manager, Laurence Charles Greig, concerning the authority granted by the Price Tribunal for raising cash fares. He explained that provision had been made for the redemption of existing concession tickets when the number of rides had been reduced. “Certain persons,” witness said, “had persistently refused to pay in that they claimed the right to use the unused balance of their tickets. In the case of the defendant Collins, there had been 10 instances of refusal to make such payments. Mr Ward said there was no evidence before the court that there had been any demand for a cash fare from the defendants. He contended that in tendering their concession tickets they were in effect tendering the legal fare. Apart from these aspects of the matter, counsel contended that the essential ingredient of mens rea had not been proved. He submitted that the corporation was not legally entitled to claim a fare exceeding that laid down in the schedule, to the Tramways Act, 1937, and he also pointed out that it had not carried out the provisions of the Act in having a list of charges exhibited inside and outside of tramcars. Under common law, the City Corporation had no more right to break a contract it had entered into than anyone else. Nothing short of statutory authority would give the corporation a right to break such a contract. The Price Tribunal did not possess such statutory authority, because at the best its orders were only a “ form 'of authorisation or suggestion.” To succeed, the prosecution would have to show that authority had been given to the City Corporation to break the contract. The magistrate, in handling a ticket submitted as an exhibit, commented that the ticket in front of him could have been used in two days. Mr Haggitt said that one of the difficulties was that some people had been hoarding concession tickets. The magistrate said he thought the matter was largely a “ storm in a teacup.” Swegt reasonableness might have prevailed, he thought. Mr Jeavons stressed that the defendant had acted without a guilty mind. He pointed out that the whole purpose. of the Control of Prices Act was to prevent the raising of prices and services to the public. He added that a number of persons had bought a large quantity of concession tickets, and they had refused to accept the redemption price. Mr Haggitt claimed that the trouble had arisen largely because a “few people are seeking the crown of marytrdom.” The City Corporation was absolutely powerless in the matter, and it had to accept the rulings of the Price Tribunal.