“SHARING OF EXPENSES”

Taranaki Daily News, 13 February 1933, Page 9

“SHARING OF EXPENSES”

ILLEGAL PASSENGER SERVICE. HAMILTON-NEW PLYMOUTH ROUTE. ' Hamilton, Feb. 10. ; . A Hamilton resident, Samuel Clothier, was convicted by Mr. Wyvern Wilson,' S.M., in the Hamilton Police Court'today for carrying a. passenger in a private car in return for a share of the expenses. The case was the first of its kind in the The defendant, who was represented by Mr. W. J. King, pleaded not guilty to carrying on a passenger service between Hamilton and New Plymouth without a license from the Licensing Authority arid to using a car for a passenger service without first obtaining a certificate of fitness for the vehicle. The circumstances, which were admitted, were that on January 24, the defendant inserted an advertisement in a newspaper stating that he was going to New Plymouth next day and that he had vacant seats. A clerk in the Public Works .Department, acting on instructions from the traffic inspector, agreed with Clothier to make the trip. He, paid Clothier 7s 6d and joined the car at Hamilton. The vehicle was stopped by the traffic inspector, W. E. Nicholson, at Melville, and it was explained that breaches of the Transport Act had occurred. ■;

Evidence in support of the prosecution was given by the clerk; who admitted he had acted as a decoy, and by the traffic inspector. For the defence Mr. King submitted that the word “used” in the Transport Act meant “habitually used,” and that the carrying of passengers for reWard on one occasion did not make a car a passenger service vehicle, nor could it be said that defendant was carrying on a passenger service. e The magistrate said that it was clear that the Legislature intended to make it an offence for any person to carry on a passenger service for one day or a part of a day without a license. Defendant must be convicted, he said. In referring to the question of ‘ penalty, counsel pointed out that the case was the first of its kind in the district. Mr. King said there was no written decision, on any similar case in New Zealand, and defendant’s object in pleading not guilty was to have the legal position clarified. Counsel pointed out that Clothier .had admitted the facts and thus had enabled the traffic inspector to complete his case. Defendant was fined £1 and costs on the first count and was ordered to pay the costs on the second count.