BUSES TO THE RACES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 759, 4 September 1929, Page 11

BUSES TO THE RACES

TRANSPORT OF PASSENGERS WITHOUT LICENCE IS SERVICE MAINTAINED? Does an unlicensed bus owner, who transports passengers on special occasions, such as race days, commit a breach of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act of 1926? This interesting question was raised in an appeal from a decision by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., heard by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court today. The appellent was Henry Reynolds, traffic inspector of the Devonport Borough Council, and the respondents Stokes and Johnston, a firm of Auckland bus proprietors. The magistrate had dismissed a prosecution brought by the inspector against Stokes and Johnston for operating their two buses without a licence and by unlicensed drivers, in transporting people to and from Devonport Wharf and Takapuna races on November 30, 1928. The issue on which the magistrate had based his decision, said Mi-. Stanton for appellant, was that the buses bad been only run on a race day and, therefore, were not bound by the licensing provision of the Act, because there was not the continuity and regularity of service to bring the vehicles within the terms of the statute. His Honour: If a bus owner, without a licence, is allowed to carry passengers to the faces three or four times a year, what difference is there to his transporting people to the football at Eden Park oil certain days? Counsel agi’eed there was no difference in the cases cited by the judge. He claimed that, assuming the' magistrate’s decision were correct, it could be logically asserted that there was no limit to the number of special occasions on which ail unlicensed bus owner could carry passengers. If a bus proprietor could operate his vehicles without a licence on race days, Mr. Stanton claimed, there was nothing to distinguish this from a man carrying passengers only on Friday night to cope with the traffic. Counsel went on to explain that the buses were used generally for sight-seeing tours, and were not required to be inspected by the P-W-D. engineer, as did buses licensed under the Act. He contended that unlicensed buses could be diverted on special occasions when the traffic was heavy, and thus interfere with the operations of existing bus services. Mr. Stanton pointed out that three cases brought under the Act had been dismissed by the magistrates in several parts of New Zealand, but in each case, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the decisions had been upset and convictions registered. He could not help thinking, he said, that there was a certain amount of prejudice in the minds of magistrates toward one interpretation of the Act, preventing them from realising the beneficial effect of the legislation. On behalf of respondents, Mr. Northcroft argued that the Act aimed at preventing unrestricted competition with public omnibus passenger services and at preventing spasmodic and irregular services springing up and later being abandoned. Counsel claimed that even before the Devonport Borough Council was the controlling authority of its district under the Omnibus Traffic Act, the council had ample powers under its by-laws to regulate routes for traffic, inspect vehicles, license drivers and enforce other provisions which were defined in the Act. In point of fact, the council had defined routes for traffic on race days. Counsel claimed that his clients had run their buses only promiscuously, no effort being made to maintain a time-table service continuity, whereas he maintained that the term service applied to vehicles running regularly and on a definite route. Decision was reserved.