The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-10-14

Statute L ana Z, w. 4, C. ~. .. b
prohibits any person from keeping,
using or letting to hire any hackney
carriage within the metropolis with
out a license. Section 20 Id. requires
that a plate shall be affixed to the
carriage on (which there shall be
painted in letters and figures OF
black upon a white ground, the
christian name and surname of the
proprietor or of one of the proprie-
tors of such hackney carriage"
Statute and 7, Wet, C. Sc, S. 10,
prohibits any person from acting as
driver of a hackney carriage without
license. Section q id. requires
that before the proprietor of a hack
ney carriage permits licensed
driver to take it out he ''shall require
to be delivered to him, and shall re-
tain in his possession, the license of
such driver or conductor while
such driver or conductor shall re-
main in his service" Section 2S id.
makes the proprietor liable to a
penalty for the misconduct of the
driver; and Section 30 id. compels
the proprietor, when required, to
produce the driver, and on failure to
do SO makes him liable to pay,-ex-
actly what does not appear. Sections
%, "a and II i'd are referred to in
Powles VS.. Hides as further authority
for the position taken infhat cause,
but their substance is not given.
The Hawaiian statutes forbid the
owner of a vehicle 'to hire or allow
the same to ply for hire within the
District of Honolulu" without a
hack License, and makes anyone in
charge of the vehicle at the time the
offense is committed, liable as owner
They also require that all drivers of
licensed hacks shall be themselves
licensed; that the owner OF such
licensed hack ''shall continually ex-
hibit in a conspicuous, place (pre-
sumably on the hack ITSELF the
number of the license" and provide
for the issue of special drivers
licenses upon the application of hack
owners, which ''shall be used only
and be valid SO long as the person
receiving the same shall remain in
the employ of and drive for the per-
son or persons making the applica
ton" therefor.
The hack regulations enacted by
the Minister of the Interior, which,
by the statute, have the force of law,
contain nothing that throws any
light on this question, except, per-
haps, the 29th section, which is as
follows: "Any licensed vehicle, horse
or harness found in service at any
time i'll an unsuitable or unsafe con-
dition for performing the duties of
common carrier will render the
owner or driver or both liable to
arrest and prosecution"
There is nothing in the Hawaiian
Statutes which corresponds to the
English requirement that the owner
of the hack shall obtain and hold the
license of anyone driving the same,
or to the one which makes the owner
liable to penalty for the misconduct
of the driver, or to the one which
compels the owner, when required,
to produce the driver or become
himself liable; but perhaps the most
important difference of all is the alb
sence in the Hawaiian law of the
English regulation that every hack
proprietor shall affix, with great
distinctness, his christian name and
surname" to the hack. Our regula-
tions merely provide that the number
of the hack license shall be exhibited
on conspicuous part thereof, which
circumstance cannot, under the rea
soning Of Powles VS.. Hider, answer
for the proprietor's christian name
and surname" That authority says,
'the cab in question when hired by
the plaintiff had upon it a plate
with the name and surname of the
defendant as the proprietor.
The proprietor who applies for
and accepts license to which this
condition is annexed, and employs |
his cab under it, must be considered |
to hold himself out to the world as
the proprietor; and he must incur
the liabilities of proprietor to all |
who use the cab with the authority of |
the driver in the ordinary course of |
dealing. If the proprietor does not |
drive it himself, he declares that the |
driver is his servant" This is an
argument which cannot be made
where merely a number is affixed to
the hack. This circumstance of the
that the owners name
shall be placed on the hack appears
to be the leading feature Of the
English statutes bearing on this
question, and in the authorities re-
ferred to is the main ground upon
which the decisions were reached.
Our statute on the other hand, be-
sides the absence of the English pro-
visions which support the theory
that the driver is the servant of the
owner under the circumstances given,
distinctly enacts, as noticed above,
that anyone in charge of an unli-
censed vehicle plying for hire, which
Of course means the driver, is to be
fi,O l.