TRANSPORT ACT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVI, Issue 21361, 2 June 1939, Page 10

TRANSPORT ACT

Breach Alleged Dunedin Corporation Sued By Telegraph—Press Association DUNEDIN, June 1. In the Magistrate’s Court this morning before Mr H. W. Bundle S.M., the Dunedin City Corporation (Mr A. N. Haggitt) was proceeded against by the Transport Department (Mr J. B. Deaker) on eight informations under tlie Transport Licensing Act, the alleged offence in each case being that the Corporation did carry on a passenger service otherwise than pursuant to the authority and in conformity with the terms of a passenger service license granted under Part 11 of the Licensing Act. 1931. The case said Mr Deker, rested entirely upon the interpretation of the ■words “special occasion,” which were not specifically defined in the Act. There were two methods of giving a meaning to the words. The first was the occasion, a special one in regard to transport. That was to say, were the ordinary facilities liable to be so overcrowded at the time as to be unable to handle the traffic? Secondly, was the occasion a special one in regard to the locality which was the purpose of the trip? Thirdly, in the majority of the cases cited, said counsel, the occasion could not be said to be a special one even for the party conveyed. No transport difficulty had arisen in any of these instances. Evidence was given of the hire of buses by organisations. William H. McKenzie, manager of the City Tramways, said that the practice of his department in connection with the hire of buses had been to refuse any application which it did not consider covered a private party on a special occasion. A great many applications had been refused on these grounds. Witness had received a circular from the Transport Department reciting clauses under which it had been held in England that certain things were not “special occasions.” Witness had ta'?n legal opinion regarding the New Zealand Act and had acted upon that opinion. Mr Haggitt contended that no evidence whatever had been put forward as to the transport facilities provided by any authority in respect to the trips undertaken ty those parties concerned in the present charges. All were private parties and all were special occasions to the parties concerned. The Eng'‘sh authorities quoted by the prosecution were of no value whatever. Counsel contended, in the crpretation of the New Zealand Act. Decision was reserved.