Blackburn Plying-for-Hire Decision.
Page 74
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE considered judgment of the Blackburn magistrates in the plying-for-hire case, reported on page 834 in our issue for last week has been given sooner than was originally intended. The justices made their pronouncement on August 3rd.
The ease, as will doubtless be remembered, was one in which Messrs. Wood Bros., motor-coach proprietors of Blackpool, were summoned for permitting a motor coach to be used as It hackney carriage, in other words, in connection with plying for hire without a licence. Thomas Cooper, the driver, was proceeded against for standing and plying... for hire, and Arthur Dinham, an agent for Messrs. Wood Bros., was summoned for aiding and abetting in the offence.
The considered judgment of the magistrates is that the vehicle in question was not licensed to ply for hire in the borough. On June 17th it was standing in the yard of 2a Ainsworth Street, 848 There was also a notice board on the footpath near the entrance of the yard upon which was chalked "Sunday, 10.15 a.m.; Blackpool, 4s, return." On the day in question, P.C. lautchinson walked into the yard and asked Dinham : "Are you sending this," meaning the coach," to Blackpool at 10.15 a.m.?" to which Dinham is stated to have replied, "Yes." Hutchinson then asked, "Are yew still booking?" and on being answered in the affirmative he bought a return ticket to Blackpool for which he paid 4s.
This was stated to be a daily service which was advertised in the local papers. Dinham said that no one was allowed to get into the carriage without a ticket and that the tickets were sold
in the yard. He admitted that theyard was open and that when the vehicle was waiting there anybody could make the journey if they took is ticket. The coach, he said, was licensed by the authorities co'neerned. Mr. Roebuck, for the defendants, submitted that there was no active soliciting of the public, and therefore no plying for hire. Also he maintained that there was "an antecedent contact" disclosed between the parties which, on the authority of "Sales v. Lake," would allow the ,vehicle in question to be used -Without a licence of
this nature. .
"We hold, on the evidence given," said the magistrates in their judgment, "that there was no antecedent con'tract, such as was relied upon in 'Sales v. Lake,' so as to entitle Messrs. Wood Bros. to carry on the service as they had done, without obtaining a licence for the vehicle. On the various authorities quoted we are clearly of opinion that there was a plying for hire and that the defendants are all liableto penalties," As this was a test case a nominal penalty of 20s. was imposed against Messrs. Wood Bros., and the costs against Dinham and Cooper.