otorcab Topics.
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
News contriteations are invited : payment will be made on publication.
Many of the French taxicabs belongiri,g to the British Motor Cab Co., Ltd., are temporarily decked with Union Jacks.
The Mayfair Motor Cab Co., Ltd., of Canterbury Terrace, Ilaida Yale, allows its drivers all the extras, 25 per cent. of the first .11 receipts and 33i per cent, of anything above that sum daily.
Obstructive Dublin.
Dublin, not contented with hindering the introduction of motorcabs, is now anxious to prevent overcrowding on the tramcars, which state of affairs, it is claimed, takes money from the jarveys.
New York's New Tariff.
A correspondent advises us that the taxicab tariff for New York which was included in the lists which we published in our last issue, has now been advanced from 53 cents. to 80 cents (or 3s. 4d.) for the first mile. Each succeeding mile now costs 50 cents.
Must be Medically Examined.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police has notified all the proprietors of mechanically-propelled public-service vehicles in the Metropolis that in future all applicants for licences to drive publicservice motor vehicles will have to undergo a medical examination or to produce a certificate as to fitness.
tional to Carry King's Guests.
The National Motorcab Co. has obtained the Coronation contract, through Mr. E. A. Greathed, for the supply of carriages to stand at the Royal Mews for the use of their Majesties' guests. No alteration has been made to the standard vehicles other than the removal of the taximeter and the licence plate, but a temporary seat has been _placed beside the driver.
A New Type of Cab.
Mr. Horace Bell's new type of -public service motor victoria has been apnroved by the Scotland Yard authorities, and the first machine has now been on the streets in service for over a week. If the public takes well to this new and luxurious type of motoreab, it is the intention of the Gamage-Bell -Co. to place a large number of them on the streets with as little delay as possible.
Hire-Purchase Taxicabs.
A very interesting point to taxicab proprietors was decided on Thursday of last week, before Mr. Justice Darling, Mr. Justice Bankes, and Mr. Justice Lush.
The point at issue was the refusal of the Commissioner of Police to grant licences to both the applicants, Messrs. C. Randall and C. Humphries, who applied for a mandamus to show cause, etc. Mr. Scott, who appeared for the Commissioner, said that the applicants had no proprietary interest in the cab until the whole of the instalments had been paid, under the hire-purchase agreement, and that the Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretion, had refused to grant the licences. The proprietor of a licensed vehicle was responsible to the public in the event of an accident, but in the case of a, cab held under the hire-purchase system a member of the public would not be able to recover damages against the proprietor as a hire-purchase holder. Quoting a case of ex parte Pearce, which came before the Divisional Court a few weeks ago, it was argued that the Commissioner had an absolute discretion, and Mr. Justice Pickford upheld that view. He, counsel, submitted that their Lordships could not go behind that judgment.
Mr. Scott pointed out that Mr. Humphries was the owner of three cabs under a hire-purchase agreement. He had received licences in respect of each of these. He had paid up in full in respect of two of them, but in the ease of the third he still owed a balance of 260. The cabs cost nearly 2500 each. On applying for renewal, the licence was refused in respect of the third cab. It could not be suggested that the applicant in this case was unsound financially.
In the case of Randall, the applicant, on the 4th of March, entered into three agreements for the acquisition of three Vinot motor cabs. He had paid 2225, or 275 in respect of each cab. On the 14th of April, he applied to the Commissioner of Police for a proprietor's licence. The L.C.C. licences had been already obtained. The cabs were ready for delivery. The applicant was asked whether he was obtaining the cabs on the hire-purchase system. He replied in the affirma tive, and told the officer attached to the Public Carriage Office that he was willing to produce his passbook and that he had a garage and held a lease for 67 years. He was willing to prove that he was financially sound.
In giving judgment Mr. Justice Darling said that in this case the point was whether the Commissioner of Police, to whom, by order of the Secretary of State, was dedicated the authority, vested in the Secretary of State, to grant licences to owners or proprietors, or to persons applying for licences for hackney carriages to ply for hire, was justified in refusing the licences applied for by the two persons, Randall and Humphries. They were men who had entered into an agreement for the hire to them of taxicabs upon a system known as the hire-purchase system. They had paid a certain number of instalments, which would continue until these taxicabs would be their own absolute property. The Commissioner, in his affidavit, had declared that the applicant had no proprietary interest in the cabs. In his lordship's opinion that decision was absolutely wrong. Under the Hackney Carriage Act of 1843 there was no doubt that the applicant was the proprietor. It was clear that the discretion of the Commissioner had been applied only in this particular case with reference to the conditions under which the applicants had purchased the cabs.
Mr. Justice Bankes said that Mr. Justice Pickford, in the case of ex parte Pearce, decided that the Commissioner had an unqualified discretion in granting the licences of hackney and stage carriages. In this case he had only exercised his absolute discretion with regard to the hire-purchase agreement, and had not satisfied himself as to the financial position of the applicant.
Mr. Justice Lush said that the Commissioner took an erroneous view in saying the applicants had no proprietary interest in the cabs. The applicants had the same interest as if they had paid their last instalments, and therefore, the Assistant-Commissioner had not taken into consideration the material facts which were supplied to him. Their lordships made a rule nisi, with costs against the AssistantCommissioner.