CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS

Taranaki Daily News, 19 July 1932, Page 9

CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS

QUESTION OF CERTIFICATE

VAN LENT TO FOOTBALL TEANI.

NOT PASSENGER SERVICE VEHICLE

STRATFORD CHARGE DISMISSED.

The provisions of the recent Transport Act regarding th© carriage of people in motor vehicles were involved in the reserved decision delivered at Stratford yesterday by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in the case of Inspector A. E. Sayer© v. Jack Sheehy, Eltham. Sheehy lent ilia lorry to his 'son to take footballer© from Eltha.m to Stratford and was. charged at the previous sitting of the court with carrying passenger© in a vehicle in respect of which he had no certificate of fitness under the Transport Act. Mr, Tate dismissed the information.

Mr. Tote ©aid that to carry passenger© in a light gt)od© van without a certificate of fitness 'for the vehicle was not necessarily an offence. Certificates of fitness wore required for passenger eervico vehicles. A passenger service vehicle was used for hire or reward for the carriage of passenger© and the Transport Act did not limit the sort of vehicle that might'com© under the definition- of a passenger, service vehicle beyond excluding vehicles of which a taxi wa© a.type; other than such any motor vehicle whatever might be classed as a passenger service vehicle if used for the carridge of passengers for hire or reward, It could not be lawfully used except if licensed by the district authority and the authority would. nOt issue a license unless the vehicle so conformed .to tlie regulations for tile time being as to entitle it to a certificate of fitness. The essential character of a passenger service vehicle was that it was used for the carriage of passengers for. hire or reward. In the present case Mr. Tate was satisfied that Sheehy lent his van to a football team believing that it had no other means of going to Stratford and that he received no reward for the use of the van. The van carried passenger© but without hire or reward,, and it did not become a passenger service vehicle and it required no certificate of fitness. The information would bo di©misspd. Nevertheless, Mi, Tate continued, the inspector had been justified in prosecuting. It was not for the informant to prove that th© passengers were carried for hire or reward but for the defendant to satisfy the magistrate to th© contrary.