A HEAVY FINE

Waipawa Mail, Volume LXII, Issue 47, 29 March 1935, Page 3

A HEAVY FINE

FOR BREACHES OF RANSPORT REGULATIONS UNUSUAL CASE. At yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Waipawa, Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., presiding, the firm of D. A. Preston, Ltd., were fined £35 and D l . A. Preston, as managing director of the firm £4O for breaches of the Transport Act in carrying on goods services otherwise than in conformity with the license issued to the firm. Mr C. G. Ilarkor, on behalf of the defendants, pleaded guilty. Mr Barrett, representing the Transport Board, stated that on .1 i.uo Ist, 1933, Preston applied for a license, and at the sitting of the Licensing Authority on August 7tli lie stated that permits for two trips to Napier per month would be sufficient, but the Authority had granted permits for four trips to Napier with one vehicle. When the firm applied for a renewal of the license no amendment was asked for except that (lie authority apply to any vehicle. The chairman of the Licensing Authority impressed on Preston that his operations must be restricted to one trip a week with one vehicle. This warning was disregarded, and during November 56 trips were made and in December 102. A serious factor was that the defendant had stated that he would not be controlled. The penalty provided in the Act was £IOO and £lO a day for each day on which a breach was committed. It had been ascertained that about 930 trips had been made. Recently Preston appealed to the Transport Co-ordination Board for an extra authority, but the appeal had been disallowed in judgment delivered at Taumarunui on the 12th inst. Mr Harker said it was unfortunate that defendant had acted without seeking advice on the legal aspect. Application was made to the Licensing Authority for an extra vehicle license, but not for a variation of the order, which would have given the Board an opportunity of considering the whole matter. When appeal was made to the Transport Co-ordination Board i{ was found that the Board could not do anything. Mr Barrett’s statement that the appeal had been dismissed was the first intimation that the defendant had received of the Board’s finding. It was obvious from the number of trips made by Preston that there was a demand for the service. Lambs had provided the bulk of the loads, and owing to the inability of the Railway Department to provide trucks when required defendant had run through to Hastings, as it was a matter of urgency. An application for a variation of the original order was now being made. The Magistrate said the defendant knew that the license granted by the Transport Authority was for one trip per week to Napier, and he had run many more trips with his eyes open. He had played the game and lost, and must pay the penalty. It was only right that a portion of the profits made on those extra trips should be estreated. It was evident that defendant was out to beat the law. Mr Preston: I was out to make a living. The Magistrate imposed a fine of £35 on the defendant company and ‘ 10 on Preston as managing director, iih uto mid in each cm