Dickens v Mulholland [1929] HCA 4

41 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 397

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.;

DICKENS , : i : i B a . APPELLANT ; Ivrormant, AND MULHOLLAND... +... RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Motor Omnibus—Licensing— Plying for hire" —Meaning of—Transport club— 1. ©, or A. Person engaged to carry and collect fares from members in motor omnibus— 1999, Motor Omnibus Act 1924 (Viet.) (No. 3378), secs. 4, 13—Motor Omnibus Act = 1925 (Vict.) (No, 3439), sec. 2—Motor Omnibus Act 1927 (Vict.) (No. 3555), Muvpourne, see. Feb. 22.

The Motor Omnibus Act 1924 (Viet.), by see. 13 1), provides that "any person Knox C1. plying for hire with any motor omnibus and the owner of such motor omnibus aud Starke JJ. permitting or concerned in plying for hire therewith who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Act . . . shall be guilty of

an offence against this Act."

The defendant, being the owner of a motor omnibus as defined in sec. 2 of the Motor Omnibus Act 1925 (Vict.), entered into a contract with a " transport club" to provide a designated motor vehicle for the exclusive purpose of conveying members of the club between Reservoir and Melbourne along a defined route, and was to receive £20 a week for performing his obligations under the contract. The defendant as driver was required to collect a fare from each member using the vehicle and to hand the fares so collected to the secretary of the club. Only members of the club were permitted to be driven in the vehicle, and the driver was to require production from each passenger of his certificate of membership of the club, In compliance with the terms of the contract the defendant conveyed a member of the club along a portion of the above-mentioned route and collected the fare from him. The vehicle 'was not licensed as required by the Motor Omnibus Acts.