WHAT IS PLYING FOR HIRE BY MOTOR COACH?
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Important King's Bench Decision in a Test Case, in which it was Contended that a Motor Coach is Plying for Hire when Picking up Passengers who had Previously Booked.
LAST July (on the 28th of the month), on the advice of Mr. A. C. Crane, of Engall and Crane, solicitors and Mr. Bernard Campion, who was counsel for the defendants, we listened to the proceedings before Mr. C. K. Francis.? the stipendiary magistrate, sitting at the Westminster Police Court, in the case brought by the Metropolitan Police against Harry John Lake, who was the driver of a motor coach, Frank Harold Caney', who was the owner of the carriage, and Charabancs (London), Ltd., who had hired the vehicle for the trip from Mr. Caney, On June 12th, the driver of this vehicle, which was described as an unlicensed carriage (this description being given because, the vehicle was not licensed to ply for hire within theeMetropolitan. Police district, as a taxicab would be permitted to do), drove it into Grosvenor Gardens, 'Vauxhall Bridge Road, stopped, and several persons were seen by the police to approach him with tickets, which he examined. He then allowed the bearers of the tickets to board the vehicle. It had been hired on the previous day from Caney by Charabancs Ltd., to convey passengers on June 12th from London to Brighton. The business of the company was to organize tours from London to various parts of the country, agents being appointed in various parts of London and elsewhere to supply information and to issue tickets. The seats were booked by the passengers and the tickets were paid for before the journey, and when theetickets had been issued and the number of passengers for the:journey had been ascertained, the company hired from Caney a coach to suit that number of passengers. Many advertisements were exhibited by the company announcing day and half-day trips and tours starting from Charing Cross and picking up passengers at different placesen route each day in each week from May 7th to September riOth last year.
Only Booked Passengers Accepted.
Intending passengers on the advertised trip to Brighton for example, were asked at the time of booking Brighton, state where they wished to be picked up, and the driver was instructed where he was to meet them, a sheet being made out and given to him showing the number of seats booked and tickets issued, and the driver was not authorized to pick up any passengers other than those who presented tickets to him. This practice was strictly followed out on the elay in question by the respondents.
It was contended by the police that the motor coach was 'a stage carriage plying for hire in Grosvenor Gardens and the fact that all seats were booked in advance was immaterial. The various cases quoted by the police. were Clarke v. Stanford (1871); Allen v. Tunbridge (1871); Foinett v. Clark (1877). For the defendants, it was contended that the vehicle was not a stage carriage, that there was no plying for hire, and that the facts disclosed no offence, the following cases being cited : Case v. Storey (1869); Cavill V. Amos (1900).
The learned magistrate's decision was that there was no plying for hire within the meaning of seeciou 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act of n69, as no member of the public could have obtained at Grosvenor Gardens a seat in the vehicle unless a ticket had been previously booked, and the inform,tion was, therefore, dismissed.
B20 Against this decision the police appealed.
The Lord Chief Justice, in giving Judgment, said : By section 4 of the Act of 1869 a stage carriage is distinguished from a hackney carriage by the fact that the passengers are separately charged, but it is common ground that if this char-a-banes is a stage carriage it can only come within the provisions of the -Act by virtue of paragraph 7 of the Secretary of State's Order of May 1st, 1917. His Lordship held that the char-a-bancs could not come within this section of the order unless it "plied for hire in a street, road, or place," and to do that two conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be a soliciting or waiting to secure passengers by the driver or other person in control, and, secondly, the owner or person in control, who is engaged in or authorizes the soliciting or waiting, must be in possession of a carriage for which he is soliciting or waiting to obtain passengers.
The Analogy of the Cabs.
Unless there is a carriage so appropriated or capable of appropriation, it is a misuse of words to say that it is plying for hire. The proper phrase would
be that a man is soliciting or waiting for persons to make a contract with him which he proposes to fulfil
by providing the necessary carriage. His Lordship contended that a cab is sometimes said to ply for i hire when the process of soliciting or waiting s over and the passenger obtained by this process is being -driven on his journey, but really this is an inaccurate expression. The cab is only plying for hire before the journey begins and again after the journey is completed, but, even in the loose application of the phrase, the idea of soliciting passengers is present.' His Lordship went on to say that the learned magistrate had found that, when the carriage was in. Grosvenor Gardens, no membeiof the public could have obtained a seat in the vehicle for that journey who had not previously booked his ticket elsewhere, that is to say, the process of soliciting was then over and the driver was merely receiving the passengers who had already hooked their seats. On this account alone the magistrate was right in refusing to convict. If there had been any empty seats for which the driver waA prepared to take any casual passengers, His Lordship thought that that would have been plying for hire. Therefore, on the findings of the learned magist6te, there is no evidence that the char-a-bancs was ever
plying for hire, because, until it had been hired for the purpose by Charaba.ncs. Ltd., who were soliciting passengers, no carriage had been appropriated to the proposed journey.
His Lordship pointed out that, in their advertisements, Charabancs, Ltd., reserved the right to cancel
the journey when fewer than 15 persons had booked seats before the advertised starting time. This was strong evidence that, when they began to solicit passengers, they had not even made up their minds that they would ever procure a carriage, and, in any case, '
they certainly had no carriage in their possession until the stage of soliciting or waiting for passengers
was over. He held that the char-a-banes was not plying for hire in Grosvenor Gardens within the meaning of paragraph 17 (2) of the Order of May 1st, 1917. Consequently the Act of 1869 did not apply and the charge failed.
Mr. Justice ivory and Mr. Justice McCardie concurred, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.