SEPARATE FARES ALLEGED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19024, 26 May 1936, Page 11

SEPARATE FARES ALLEGED

MANUTUKE TAXI OWNER PAYMENT BY PASSENGERS FINE OF £2 An ownin' of n taxi. Mis. P. Milling. Terito, Alaiiutuke, was charged in tat Magistrate s Court before Mr. E. i-. Walton, S.M., yesterday with running a taxi service in which separate lares were charged. Her husband 11ati te Atu. aiso known as Jones and Nepal, was charged with acting as agent lor the owner. Mr. K. 11. liarreti. chief traffic inspector for the Transport Depariment, Wellington, conducted the prosecution. Mr. J. S. Waticliop appeared for the defendants. The charge against the first defendant was withdrawn, and Hati te Atu was lined £2 and costs £6 4s. This case followed one in which l'e Uri Horewini was fined £1 and costs 17s foi travelling at 30 miles an hour when pass ingt another vehicle, juul when such speed might liave been dangerous to the public. Herewini. for whom Mr. Wauchop appeared, was driving the taxi concerned in the other charge. It was alleged by Air. W. 11. Scott, main highways traffic inspector, who brought the charge, that Herewini drove round the bend near the showgrounds, passing! two other cars which were already abreast of each other. Mr..T. W. Exton. inspector of the Transport Department, supported evidence given on the point by Air. Scott. Defendant denied the statements made, but the magistrate accepted the story told by tho two inspectors. The inspectors accosted Herewini fit Alakaraka immediately after the incident mentioned above, and the allegations of charging separate fares were made as a result- of inquiries made then.

Ilerewiui, in evidence, said that lie was driving the taxi on April 28 for Hall te Atu, and had six passengers in the car. Witness was spoken to at Alakalaka. When seen by the inspector ho said that liis , car was engaged by Aliss Bradford. lie explained to the inspector that the. person who engaged the car had ■r> pay the fare. The inspector then suggested that witness should collect the tares. Witness replied that, he had' received instructions not to collect ihe fares from individual passengers. He was to collect 12s Gd for the trip. There were six. passengers in tho car. To Mr. Wauchop witness said that he collected the fare because the inspector insisted that he should do so. The inspector sa.id il would he “all right’ for him to do so. He collected only from Miss Bradford. Witness had been instructed not to collect fares from Ihe passengers.

William Henry Scott, main highways traffic inspector, said that when he was stopped at Alakaraka Herewini said that all paid separate faros. Herewini then •.vent- to (lie car, and collected money from each passenger. Herewini also exnlained that for a return trip he charged Ps 6d a passenger and for a 'single fare tho charge was 2s. The inspector saw

Te Atu, who said that nobody had engaged the car. No entry was made in ihe hook for that day, but entries were made for past day's. Mr. Barrett : it was you who suggested the fare should be collected 7 Witness: Y es. I wanted to see llitmoney changing hands. Mr! Wauchop : He told you ho did not think that was right, and you said it would he all right:—l purely and simply wished to see iho money change hands. He had not collected any fares from them at that time?—Dp till then he had not. i He did not collect the fares even then : lie went back to the car and spoke to Miss Bradford, and Aliss Bradford took the money back to .your car? —Yes. And she handed it to Herewini? —Yes. lie did not collect the fares at all? Oh, yes.

He told you (hat he did not collect fares?—lie said lie would collect them at Mamituke.

Witness added that Herewini did not say that Miss Bradford would collect the fares.

T. W. Exton, traffic inspector, said that the passengers paid money to Aliss Bradford, who handed il to the driver. One passenger, a man named Wcstrnp paid 2s to the driver. Air, Wauchop: The driver knew that Mr. Scott was m charge of the tndhc, and would probably think it was the right thing to do?—Yes, 1 suppose so. Miss Bradford collected tile Fares, and look the money to the. driver?—Yes, because she did not have any change to give to the driver. The passengers all put up their money. You did not sec the passengers pay the money over to Herewini? —I saw money change hands. ft- was Aliss Bradford who got the money from tho individuals and paid to Herewini?—Yes, been use she did not have enough change; even then, she did not have enough, and she said she would he responsible for the fares. Charlie Westrup said he paid 2s to Miss Bradford. He had come in by the same car in the morning. Others in the car paid 2s 6d to Aliss Bradford. ITe only paid 2s because it was all he had. Mr. Barrett explained that he could not call Aliss Bradford, who was in hospital. Mr. Wauchop said that the car was purchased in the name of Mrs. Te.rito, and her husband was the driver. The car was owned by Messrs. Bignell and Holmes and was’hived to her, but she had nothing to do with the business. Hati paid the running expenses, and the cost of hire of the car and then for his family. Hati believed that if a person hired the car, he was not responsible. In this case, Aliss Bradford was responsible. Hati te Atu, in evidence, said that lie held the taxi license, and his wife had nothing to do with the business. Herewini drove the car on the day in question because witness’ eyes were had. On tho day in question, Aliss Bradford engaged the car, and Herewini was told not to charge fares separately. This closed the defendant’s ease.

The charge against Airs. Tcrito was then withdrawn.

11 is Worship said it was evident that Hati was carrying on a passenger service between Manutukc and Gisborne. A person should not rely on the assumption that if he took one sum of money lie was outside the provisions of the Act, because in this case the defendant came within the provisions of carrying on within a defined route.

Hati was fined £2 and costs, which totalled £(i 4s.