THIS DAY.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1970, 28 April 1875, Page 2

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Fbaseb, Esq., R.M.) a dbivee's neglect.

George Tidal was charged with that he, beingthe driver of a hackney carriage, wias guilty of a breach of section 40, Byelaw No. 1, Borough of Thames, by leaving such carriage unattended in Pollen street, Shortland.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Bullen said he had not subpoenaed any witnesses, thinking to save defendant expense, but he could prove the case himself.

Robert Bullen, Sub-Inspector, deposed —On the night of April 23rd, he was travelling in a hackney, carriage from Grahamstowh to Shortland between 9 and 10 o'clock at night. When in Pollen street, at the intersection of Mary street, in the Borough, saw defendant's carriage standing in the middle of the roadway. His (witness') carriage had to make a detour to get round it. There were a pair »fhorses to it, and no one in charge. Defendant was in a shop, some distance from his carriage. '"■-. ; Bj Defendant—You had no control over the horses. You could not, see the horses. I do not consider the,section of the bye-law vexatious. ■ 1,.d0 not consider it necessary that a coachman should leave his horses at times as you did. Defendant said he had gone into ;Feriton's to buy a couple of oranges, as he had a bad cold. He was only about a moment absent, and had left room for other carriages to pass. He then explained to the Bench the idea of the Borough Council in framing the Bye-law. It was intended to refer to those who neglected their horses by drinking in public houses, and playing billiards. He took particular care of his businesSj and had every confidence in his horses—more, in fact, than he had in the Inspector of Police.

His Worship admitted that from his experience of defendant's horses, he should not consider them likely to display much spirit; but it was necessary that a driver should have some pretence to have control over his horses.

Defendant explained that, the enforcement of the laws with respect to carriages would upset all preconceived notions, and would render the business; one which it would be impossible to follow. He could not conduct his business if he was not permitted to enter shops occasionally when it was necessary, ai-in the case when he purchased the oranges. : His Worship said he wa» sure that neither the Sub-Inspector or the Council had any disposition to oppress drivers. It was the. exception when the laws affecting them were unkroken. He moreover told defendant that he, being a superior man who appeared to know more of the law than the Court itself, should hare less excuse for breaking it than an ordinary coach-driver. Defendent was very gorry to have been placed in the position. He regretted it much, and had not pleaded guilty to deny that his'bus was on the road, but that he might have an opportunity of giving the Court his views as to the intentions of the Act.

His Worship said that he would only impose a mild fine of 2s 6d and costs, under these circumstances, and defendant ought to be much obliged to the Inspector, who had endeavored to make his expenses ai light as possible. Defendant returned thanks in form, both to the Inapector and His Worship.