AUCKLAND TRAMWAYS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9015, 23 August 1907, Page 1

AUCKLAND TRAMWAYS.

♦ PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PASSENGERS. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, August 22. The much-discussed question of the effect ot by-laws relating to tramway | trair.o received judicial contributions I to-day, when Mr Kettle delivered judgI meiit- in cases in which Messrs L. J. I Baguall, V. Bugnall, Jamieeon and Speutiing were charged with a breach or the tramway by-laws in remaining in | a car when the available seating accommodation was already occupied. In the course of his judgment, iir Kettle said that, with regard to the case of : Messrs Bagnull, the evidence showed, that when they entered the car there was seating accommodation, but before they could seat themselves the seats ! were taken by other persons. In his opinion, being there when the seats were all occupied, they had no right to remain. The by-law was quite clear on that point. No one must travel in or on a car except upon a seat as provided by Regulation 15. They could not get a seat, and, though they entered lawfully, their remaining there was a \ breach of the by-law. It would lead to ' endless confusion to say, as was contended, that because a person entered a car when seats were available, and did not get a seat, that person was entitled to remain. Such a person was not entitled to stay in the car after being warned to leave. ! Mr Prendergast: The case of Mr Spedding was different. That occurred outside the city. Mr Kettle said he did not think that argument had been advanced seriously. It was contended that, because Spedding was outside the city boundary, he did not commit a breach of the by-law. To his (Mr Kettle's) mind, that did not prevail. There was a well-known decison given by a learned Magistrate that the city licenses did operate within the radius of five miles of the Chief Post Office. That decision was given in July, 1904. Mr Blomfield (who appeared for one of the defendants, and who, when on the Bench, gave the judgment referred to) said that, when arguing during the case, he had forgotten all about the decision. Mr Kettle went on to say that Spedding was liable, and that the license of the car extended to the place where the offence was committed. These prosecutions would be a warning to the public that, until the by-laws were modified or altered, no person must remain in a car without having a seat. If it was considered that circumstances had arisen that justified an alteration, the public must wait til! the alteration was legally put into effect. In tho meantime, the by-laws must be observed, and, if people deliberately broke them, it would be for the Court to assess penalties that would prevent a further breach. In the circumstances, the present cases would be met with a small fine. A conviction would be recorded in each case, with a Is fine and costs.