PASSENGERS ON LORRIES

Waipa Post, Volume 48, Issue 3467, 17 May 1934, Page 5

PASSENGERS ON LORRIES

VEHICLE’S CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS. RESERVED DECISION GIVEN. Reseiwed decision was given at the local S.M. Court this morning by Mix 1 F. H. Levien in the ease heard at last month’s sitting, when the Waikato County Council’s inspector, Mr IR. Metcalfe, prosecuted John A. Maxwell, of Te Awamutu, for alleged breaches of the motor regulations by carrying a party of Maoris from Parawera to Huntly without he having first obtained a certificate of fitness in respect .to..the. .yehicle. In his judgment Mr Levien said this was a case involving interpretation of the passenger service clauses of the Transport Licensing Act, under section 2. Section 21 had bean quoted by counsel, but it did not apply, as it dealt only with the question of exemption from passenger service licenses. Section 38 dealt with the issue of certificates of fitness. The whole question was whether the vehicle concerned, a truck, used to take passengers to Huntly, perhaps by a round-about route, and hii'ed for a lump sum, was a passenger service vehicle. If it was held to be so, it must have a cert ficate of fitness. The atmosphere of the Transport Licensing Act of 1931 contemplated that there were two types of vehicle —one for passenger service and another for goods service. It must be interpreted as an intention to keep these two services distinct and £\art, for the Governor-General might permit the carriage of passengers hy a goods serviqe vehicle. Therefore it was never contemplated that there should not be a goods service vehicle capable of carrying passengers. Now he was asked to decide if the vehicle concerned in the present case was designed to carry passengers up to the limit of eight allowed. He would hold that it was not a passenger vehicle, but that it was primarily used for the transport of goods. Another point was whether the vehicle in question was available for hire to any member of the public by paying separate fares as passengeixs. Again he would hold that it is not available for hire to the public as passengers. The position is similar to that whei’e a passenger vehicle is not available for goods carrying, though the vehicle could be used to carry goods. The vehicle in the present case is definitely not available all the time to any particular pei’son for hiring, but clearly the owner can accept an engagement to carry passengers. The third question to be determined was whether the vehicle was used for the carriage of passengers otherwise than on a defined route. He would hold that it was net. A route was definitely specified, but it was chosen by the hirer because it was quieter and there was less danger. The word “ defined ” is used in the statute to mean the route that is ultimately defined by the authority over which passenger service vehicles may ply for hire or run. The present vehicle de es r.ot come within A, B or C classes, and it is not a passenger service vehicle. The information would accordingly be dismissed. Mr Preston, for defendant, asked for costs against the count;* council, adding that it was really a test case. His Worship decided to allow £2 2s to cover all costs. Mr Swarbi'ick, for plaintiffs, said the case was of considerable interest to the Department, and therefore asked for the fixing of security for appeal. His Worship said the amount would be referred to the clerk of the Court.