Black v Neilson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1898 |
| Docket Number | No. 29. |
| Date | 19 July 1898 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Trayner, Ld. Moncreiff.
Police—Tramway—‘Stage Carriage’—Statute—Implied Repeal—Glasgow Police Act, 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. cap. cclxxiii.)—Glasgow Tramways Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. cap. clxxv.)—Glasgow Corporation Act, 1893 (56 and 57 Vict. cap. ccviii.).—
The Glasgow Police Act, 1866, contains a variety of provisions with respect to ‘stage carriages,’ sec. 227 making it in particular an offence for the driver of such a carriage to carry more than the number of passengers specified in the licence issued by the magistrates' committee. The Glasgow Tramways Act, 1870, and the Glasgow Corporation Act, 1893, contain provisions empowering the Corporation to issue bye-laws for the regulation of tramways.
The driver of a tramway car, for which the Corporation of Glasgow as owners held a licence under the Act of 1866 to carry a specified number of persons, was charged with having contravened that Act by carrying more than the specified number. He pleaded in defence that the Act of 1866 had no application to tramway cars in respect that tramway cars were not ‘stage carriages,’ and separatim, that the Act of 1866 had been superseded quoad tramways by the Acts of 1870 and 1893. The magistrate repelled the objection, and convicted the accused. Held in an appeal, that the objection had rightly been repelled.
Police—Stage Carriage—Tramway—Overcrowding—Glasgow Police Act, 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. cap. cclxxiii.) secs. 226 and 227.—
The Glasgow Police Act, 1866, sec. 226, enacts that no stage carriage shall be used for hire unless there ‘is conspicuously painted or marked either on the inside or the outside, or on both the inside and outside thereof, the number of inside and outside passengers to be carried thereby’; and sec. 227 enacts that every driver of such carriage ‘who carries in or by the same any greater number’ than the number of persons painted thereon shall be liable in a penalty.
The driver of a tramway car which was licensed under the above Act to carry eighteen persons inside and twenty-two persons outside, these respective numbers being painted up on the inside of the carriage, was charged with a contravention of sec. 227 in respect that on an occasion specified he had carried twenty-four persons in the inside of the car. It was proved that he had carried twenty-four passengers in the inside, but it was also proved that he had carried only sixteen persons on the outside; and he pleaded that not having exceeded the total number of passengers authorised by the licence, he had not been guilty of the offence charged. The magistrate convicted.
Held in an appeal on a case stated, that the appellant had been rightly convicted.
On 14th October 1897, George Black was charged in the Northern Police Court, Glasgow, on a summary complaint at the instance of George Neilson, procurator-fiscal, setting forth ‘That the respondent, George Black, No. 44 Vernon Street, Glasgow, guard or conductor of a stage carriage, being a “driver” within the meaning of the Glasgow Police Act, 1866, has contravened the said Glasgow Police Act, 1866, particularly section 227† thereof, in so far as on the 8th day of
October 1897 the said respondent, being then guard or conductor as aforesaid of a stage carriage, number 351, the property of the Corporation of Glasgow, stage carriage proprietors, Glasgow, and then plying between Maryhill and Glassford Street, both in Glasgow, did, in New City Road, Glasgow, carry twenty-four persons in the inside of said stage carriage, being a greater number than is painted or marked thereon to be carried in the inside of said stage carriage, such number being limited to eighteen persons in the inside, and such offence is the first offence. Whereby the said respondent is liable,’ &c.
Two preliminary objections were stated for the accused, namely (first), that the section libelled of the Glasgow Police Act, 1866, was superseded, and was not applicable to cars run by the Corporation of Glasgow in respect of the provisions of the Glasgow Street Tramways Act, 1870, and subsequent statutes;* and (second) that the facts
libelled were not of themselves an offence,—that was to say, that the overcrowding of the inside alone of the stage carriage was not an offence, and that there was no offence unless the total number of passengers inside and outside together, which the stage carriage was licensed to carry, was exceeded.
The magistrate repelled these objections. The accused then pleaded not guilty, but, after evidence had been led, was convicted, and was admonished and discharged from the bar.
He obtained a case. The case stated:—‘On 8th October 1897, about 8.25 a.m., the appellant was in charge as guard or conductor of a stage carriage belonging to the Corporation of Glasgow, being a tramway car, No. 351, then plying between Maryhill and Glassford Street, Glasgow, travelling eastwards along New City Road. When it reached St George's Cross, which is a tramway station, the car was examined by the police, when it was found that there were twenty-four passengers inside, of whom six were standing, but that on the outside there were six vacant seats, there being on the outside six fewer passengers than the car was licensed to carry on the outside. There, was no evidence of when any of these passengers joined the car, but the appellant was on the platform, and I held it proved that the passengers were in the car with his consent. It was proved that it was a wet morning.
‘It was proved that the stage carriage or tramway car in question was certificated by the Magistrates' Committee of the Corporation of Glasgow, in terms of the Glasgow Police Act, 1866, conform to certificate, dated 13th October 1896,* and which certificate continued in force until 12th October 1897, and that it was a condition of said certificate that the said stage carriage should not be used for carrying at one time a greater number of persons than eighteen in the inside thereof and twenty-two on the outside thereof. It was also proved that there was painted up on the inside of said stage carriage the number of persons which it was certificated to carry in the inside thereof, and the number which it was certificated to carry on the outside thereof.
‘The preliminary pleas were repeated on the merits.’
The questions of law were,—‘1. Was the first preliminary objection rightly repelled? 2. Was the second preliminary objection rightly repelled? And in the event of both of these questions being answered in the affirmative, 3. Was the appellant rightly convicted on the facts proved?’
Argued for the appellant;—(1) The Glasgow Police Act of 1866 did not apply to tramway cars run by the Corporation of Glasgow. The Act of 1866 dealt with ‘stage carriages,’ which term did not naturally include tramways, there being at that date no tramways in existence. The tramways in Glasgow were regulated by the Glasgow Street Tramways Act, 1870, and subsequent Acts, particularly the Glasgow Corporation Act, 1893, which collectively constituted a complete tramway code for Glasgow, and by implication superseded the Act of 1866, assuming that that Act in any view applied to tramways. Section 71 of the Act of 1870, for example, superseded section 226 of the Act of 1866. Again, section 76 empowered the making of bye-laws, including, it must be assumed, bye-laws to prevent overcrowding. Section 79 of the Act of 1870 was unintelligible on the assumption that the Act of 1866, of its own force, applied to tramways. In any view the
Corporation had power, under section 30 of the Glasgow Corporation Act, to make bye-laws for regulating the number of passengers to be carried on tramway cars. In short, if the Act of 1866 were held to apply to tramways there would be two rival licensing bodies—the Magistrates' Committee under the Act of 1866, and the Corporation under the Act of 1870 and subsequent statutes. (2) The section of the Act of 1866 alleged to have been contravened, section 227, made it an offence to carry a ‘greater number’ of persons than the number marked thereon, i.e. on the car. But section 227 was referential to 226, which explained what this ‘number’ was. What was required to be painted was ‘the number of inside and outside passengers.’ One number, giving the aggregate of the two classes, was what was required; and there could be no offence under section 227 unless that aggregate number was exceeded, which was not the case here, either as matter of relevancy on the face of the complaint, or as matter of evidence on the facts found to be proved. (3) The facts found to be proved did not, in any view, justify a conviction. There was nothing to shew that the excess number of passengers had been ‘carried.’ They might have stepped on to the car at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial