TROUBLE OVER A FARE.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15306, 6 August 1923, Page 4

TROUBLE OVER A FARE.

DEPARTMENT'S VIGILANCE. HAMILTON MAN PROSECUTED. The first case of its kind heard in the district for some time was heard at the Magistrate's Court, Hamilton, this morning, when, before Mr H. A. Young, S.M., William Harold Taylor, livery-stable proprietor, Te Aroha, and formerly of Hamilton, was charged with wilfully and deliberately travelling for a greater distance on the south-bound Auckland - Wellington express on May 29 than his ticket entitled him to. The prosecution came as the result of particular vigilance observed by the Department caused by numerous cases of "over-riding" being suspected. Defendant, who was represented by Mr Strang, pleaded not guilty. Basil Leonard Coltman, guard, said that when he commenced inspecting the tickets shortly after tho train left Auckland defendant handed him one ticket to Mercer and one to Frankton, the latter for his wife. Defendant mentioned nothing about requiring an extension.

Thomas George Glasgow, guard to charge of the train, said that when he went through th? train after leaving Mercer, th.jie had been no response from Taylor. When later witness and the' inspector, who happened to be in Iho train, interviewed Taylor, the latter made some excuse, and tendered the money for the ticket. Defendant •f he wished to continue in the train past Mercer should have intimated to tho guard that he desired to obtain an extension.

John Kerry Davis, inspector on duty on board the train, Said tbav the Department maintained the defendant should have bought a ticket from Mercer when the guard came round for Mercer tickets. Altogether defendant had three chances of getting the extension.

For the defence Mr Strang said the defendant and his wife had been spending a short honeymoon in Auckland, having been married only a few days previously. Counsel contended the defendant had no thought of "beating" the Railway Department, but certainly made a mistake in not applying for an extension of his ticket earlier in the journey. Mr Strang suggested that the fact that defendant had only recently been married would have the effect of -making him, perhaps, a little forgetful of the Department's regulations. (Laughter.) His Worship: Do I understand that you are pleading insanity on the grounds that the man had been married only three days before? (Renewed laughter.)

Defendant in evidence said that when he and his wife arrived at Auckland station they had only a few minutes to catch the train. Defendant had two £lO notes on him and about 16s in silver. Having no time to wait for change, lie bought a second class single ticket to Frankton Junction for his wife and one to Mercer for himself—he could not get two tickets right through to Frankton Junction for the amount he had in change. Ho intended later when he could procure change to get an extension ticket from Mercer to Frankton Junction. He had intimated to one of the guards his intention of doing so. An official who came through after the train left Mercer asked: "Is there anyone here from Mercer?" but from this defendant did not understand that he was collecting tickets from Mercer, but merely that he was -looking for Mercer people. Defendant intended paying the extension when the guard came around to collect his wife's ticket. Corroborative evidence of-the guard having asked "Is there anyone here from Mercer?" when coming through after the train left Mercer was given by Frank Burgess, ironmonger, another passenger on the train. Witness was of the opinion that the inspector, had he been a little more courteous to defendant, would probably 'have obtained more satisfaction. Evidence on the lines of defendant's depositions was given by his wife, Pearl Eileen Taylor, who stated that her husband 'had not been given much chance to explain. In summing up his Worship said that the inspector had apparently acted propertly in the -matter and the Department had done quite right in. bringing the prosecution. However, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant had deliberately attempted to defraud the Department. Many a wiser man probably than he had overlooked details when on a honeymoon trip. The information would be dismissed.