HIRING A TAXI.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16121, 9 May 1923, Page 4

HIRING A TAXI.

HOW CONSTABLE STRAWBRIDGE .*•;, WENT ON DUTY.

UNUSUAL CHARGE FOLLOWS

The calling of a taxi is as a rule a commonplace event,'but in a case brought under the notice of Mr. E. C. S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning, such an incident had unusual

con sequences. Bobert J. Kerridge (Mr. R. B. Hill) * was-proceeded against by tho Borough Inspector (W. H. Scott) on a charge of driving a car and plying- for hire without a license for that car. Mr. Hill pleaded not guilty. Mr. H. D. Chrisp appeared for the Inspector. Evidence was given by Constable Strawbridge, who stated that the car had been rung up for by a lady to take him on, duty. A charge of 7s 6d was made 'by Kerridge, who had gone to Mangapapa in response to the call. Witness admitted that the matter was one of some urgency, as; ho had to be on "duty-at 9 o'clock. The call Mas sent at about 8.30. . Mr, W\ H. Scott, Borough traffic inspector, stated there had been complaints about defendant carrying passengers in his car. He had been warned that the . practice would have to cease, as the car was not licensed for that purpose. In reply to Mr. Hill, witness did not think'that it was likely that no reply would be received from two taxi stands even on a wet night. Mr.- Chrisp said that he could cal four witnesses "who would say that they were on the stand at the time. Mr Hill stated that Kerridge was a' Wilkinson's Motor Coy., where he w<r manager, and a call came from Bell's store, Mangapapa, for a car to take r constable on duty by 9 p.m. It was 8.40 p.m. when the message was re eeivcdyaiid the call was'therefore 'urgent There were no cars' in Wilkinson': garage at the time, and defendant couh' not get one from any of the stands Therefore he .had. gone up in his*owi car. '

The defendant gave evidence tha' when he was informed that a car waturgently required at Mangapapa h< rould not get another oar. Ho therefore went in his'own car, as the com panyjw'as legally bound by law to provide ft car'when required. He went t( JtTrigwpana, picked up the constabk and another passenger with him, anr came info town.. The other passengc was" 1 dropped 'at" the' Albion hotel, anc' Constable Strawbridge was' taken to th< police' station. If witness had not gon' out in his car the constable would no* have been on duty by 9 p.m. He admit ted charging a fare of 7/6, which was paid into the firm. The circumstance.' were explained to Constable Straw bridge and Inspector Scott' when they called upon him. To Mr Chrisp defendant, stated thai though he had telephoned both tax! stands, he had not telephoned thr Aard, a rival company. He admitted taking the car in question up to Tolagr Bay races with passengers, but tha* was only because the company's car fo; which.the passengers had been booked had broken down. In view of the pre sent proceedings he did not intend U ■use his car for fares again. He had in the past given plenty of work to th; other taxis. On the occasion in ques tion the callwas urgent, the night wa wet and ho had only 20 minutes ir which to act. 1 'John Bradley, clerk in" the office o! the .Wilkinson'Motor Coy., endorsed th< defendant's evidence. A call was Te ceived by him between ten and a quarter'to 9 for a oar to take- someone to duty in ten minutes. There, were ears in the garage, but no drivers, and he could not get anyone from the stands To* Mr Chrisp, witness said that h< thought it ..was the constable who spok< at the other end of the telephone. It sounded'-lite a roan's voice. >:

Mr Chrisp: Did you say to (fenstable Strawbridge, when he saw you. that you did hot remember the incident of the ring?—No, not exactly; Mr Hill: I suppose you are not prepared to say whether the ring cam< * from a man or a woman?—No.

' Mr Chrisp submitted that defendan' had used the car before, and this was not fair to the taxi drivers.

His Worship presumed' that defendant must have- been fully acquainted with the law. A heavv penalty, £2O, was ■provided for this offence, with £5 a day if it continued. In view of defendant'.* own statements, he could not treat tin case as a technical breach.', Certainly i'< was an extenuating circumstance that defendant personally gained nothing from it. - Defendant would be fined 20s. and costs £2 ls»'6d v but' he ■ warned otlters . that if. afty 'more such cases came before him he would make the penalty a substantial one.