The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-10-10

Fowler VS. Lock q L. r. G.. P. 272I
The latter authority, indeed, which
was an action brought by the driver
OF a cab against the owner for dam
ages for furnishing, with the cab, an
uDruly horse which injured the
plaintiff, goes further and somewhat
weakens the force of Powles VS..
Hider The majority of the Court in
Fowler vs.. Lock decided that as be-
tween the owner and driver of the
cab the relation was not that of
master and servant, but that of bailor
and bailee and Judge Wilde, who
dissented from his associates. said
" In deciding this case against the
defendant we should seem directly to
override the reasoning of the Court
OF Queens Bench. I'm Powles VS..
Hider.)
We have then to find in our sta
tutes enactments which, like the
English Acts, create the relation of
master and servant between hack
owner and driver as regards mischief
done by the driver to the public in
the prosecution of his work as driver,
before we can hold the defendant in
this cause responsible to the plaintiff
for the injury complained of. As our
law library does not contain the
English laws referred to, we are left
to find them SO far as is possible in
the authorities quoted.
Statute l and 2, w. 4, C. %, S. 6,
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 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 6 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 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 % i'd
makes the proprietor liable to a
penalty for the misconduct of the
driver; and Section 35 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 id. are referred to in
Powles vs.. Hides as further authority
for the position taken in that 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 2Sth section, which is as
follows: "Any licensed vehicle, horse
or harness found in service at any
time in 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 a 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 hacl
proprietor shall affix, with grea
distinctness, his christian name anC
surname" to the hack. Our regula
tons merely provide that the number
of the hack license shall be exhibited
on a conspicuous part thereof, which
circumstance cannot, under the red
soning of Powles VS.. Hider, answe
for the proprietor's =" christian nam,
and surname" That authority says
1.-The cab in question when hired b,
the plaintiff had upon it a plate
with the name and Surname of tn,
defendant as the proprietor
The proprietor who applies 70
and accepts license to which thi
condition is annexed, and employ
his cab under it, must be considered
to hold himself out to the world a
the proprietor; and he must incu
the liabilities of proprietor to al
who use the cab with the authority o
the driver in the ordinary course o
dealing If the proprietor does no
drive it himself, he declares that th+
driver is his servant" This is a,
o,r,,,,oot which cannot no mad