M'Adam v Dublin United Tramways Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1929
• Date: 14 May 1929
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

High Court.

M'Adam v. D. U. T. Co.

GUARD JOSEPH J. M'ADAM

Complainant

and

THE DUBLIN UNITED TRAMWAYS COMPANY, LIMITED,Defendants (1)

Motor omnibus - Regulations - Breach - Carrying more passengers than licence permitted - Passengers travelling on parts of bus other than parts specified in licence - Summonses against proprietors of bus - Absolute prohibitions contained in regulations - Absence of mens rea no defence - Notices served on conductors of buses not to overcrowd - Admissibility of such notices - Liability of conductor - Form of summons - Validity - Offences charged - Dublin Carriage Act, 1853 (16 & 17Vict. c. 112), sects. 34 and 50.

Case Stated by E. J. Little, Esq., District Justice, District Court Area of Dublin, for the determination of the High Court pursuant to sect. 83 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, on questions of law, which arose before him under the Dublin Carriage Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 112), sect. 34, and the byelaws of 28th May, 1918, duly made under sect. 50 of said Act by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and approved of by the then Recorder of Dublin, the Right Hon. Thomas L. O'Shaughnessy K.C.

The case stated was as follows:—

"At the sitting of Court No. 1 of the District Court for the said area at Inns Quay, Dublin, on the 29th day of October, the respondent, the Dublin United Tramways Co., appeared before me, then and there sitting as a District Justice, upon two complaints for overcrowding of an omnibus, by proceedings instituted by Joseph J. M'Adam (Guard 66 A), the appellant herein, by issue of two separate summonses, the charges in which respectively (omitting formal parts) were as follows, namely:—

1. That, on the 25th day of August, 1928, at 6.18 p.m., at Deane Street, in said district a stage carriage, namely, a heavy motor omnibus, No. 414, your property, licensed under the provisions of the Dublin Carriage Act, 1853, did contain a greater number of inside passengers than the number of same specified in the licence issued in respect of the said heavy motor omnibus; and

2. That, on said date, and at said time, and at said place, ten passengers were permitted to travel in said stage carriage in a part other than the places set apart and specified in the said licence.

And by each of the said summonses the defendant company was required to produce at the hearing of the said complaint the conductor of said stage carriage, his licence, and badge. [The two summonses are printed post, p. 331.]

The appellant, Guard 66 A, was represented by his counsel, Mr. Bewley K.C., and the respondent company was represented by Mr. Joseph O'Connor K.C.

The facts proved or admitted before me in evidence are as follows:—

Complainant, Guard M'Adam, 66 A, was on duty at 6 p.m. on Saturday, the 25th August, 1928, at the junction of Patrick Street and Deane Street, when bus No. 414 of the defendant company, coming from Clanbrassil Street, drew up opposite to him to permit of two passengers getting off. The complainant, while the bus was so standing, walked around it, and noted that every seat in the interior was occupied, and that there were in addition ten passengers standing inside the bus, down the centre of the passage. Complainant then took the number of the bus, but made no communication to either the driver or the conductor of the bus, nor to any of the passengers; and the bus started again on its course into the city within five to ten seconds of letting down the two fares. In consequence of a report made by complainant to his superior officers, a summons was applied for on the information of Guard 66 A, and issued on the 10th September, 1928, in which the respondent company was made the defendant. The charge in the summons was that the respondent company 'did permit a greater number of passengers to travel on bus 414, their property, than the number specified in the licence in respect of said vehicle, and the defendant company was therefore required to produce at the hearing of the case the driver and conductor and his licence and badge.' The first communication in reference to, or notice of, the commission of the offence to the defendant company was the service of this summons on the 14th September on the company, and this appeared in the list, and was set down for hearing before my learned colleague, Mr. Charles Kenny, on the 24th September, when the following entry was made by him in the Justice's Minute Book:—'Withdrawn by leave of the Court.' The summonses, the subject-matter of the present prosecution, were then applied for in respect of the same offence, and were issued on the 16th October, and served on the 19th October. It was admitted that the number of inside passengers which the bus was licensed to carry was 34, and that the number in fact carried on the occasion in question was 44.

Mr. Stuart, traffic manager for the defendant company, produced and proved a written notice, signed by his predecessor in office, the late Mr. Daniel Brophy, dated 25th February, 1927, copies of which had been issued to all inspectors of the company for service on the bus drivers and conductors in the employment of the company, warning them against taking up more passengers than the permitted number; that Mr. Daniel Brophy had died in July, 1928, and was succeeded by witness. Mr. Stuart also proved execution by him of a notice of the same character, dated 7th September, 1928, copies of which had been issued by him personally, as manager of the defendant company, to all inspectors for service on bus drivers and conductors of the company.

Mr. William Joseph Lawlor, travelling inspector of the defendant company for six years past, proved to have issued copies of the said notices, as produced, to all drivers and conductors of the defendant company. Mr. Bewley objected to the admission of these notices as not being legally admissible. I ruled against...