The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-11-19
BABY N ARMS IS MT
A CHILD" IN LONDON

London. Nov. 1.-THE question
whether an infant in arms is to be
rega rded as a child within the mean
ing of the London Carriage act, 1888
was decided In The negative by kings
bench divisions court. consisting of
the Lord Chief Justice Avory ard
Justice Sankey, say the Manchester
Guardian"
The point was raised In an appeal
! from the decision OF the metropolitan
magistrate. Mr.. p'Eyncourt, in the
case Kemp against Lubbock, In which
the dispute was whether an extra fare
should be paid for an infant taken in
a taxicab.
MIR. Terrell. appearing for the ap-
pel|ant. said the infant in the case
was Is months old. He asked the
court 70 decide whether the infant was
an extra person within the rules made
by the home secretary under the acts
OF 1863 ard 1907
TIE magistrate. who had decided
against the appellant. stated that II
was not the custom to pay for chit
dren in arms. and he accordingly dis
missed the summons 10 compel the re-
esrnndent to pay for the extra person
a sum OF six pence. The total amount
involved. counsel explained. was two
pence. because the lady seemed to
have been generous and presented n
tip OF four pence. She was credited
with that sum Four different maeis-
trates had heard the point discussed.
and the appellant had received a IA
vorablc decision from the Marlborough
street magistrate.
81 should think II difficult to make
n person pay for an infant being car
ried. The point in contention has al
ways been whether the child carried
was really an infant in arms Some
have been known to carry infants in
arms who were Ave or six years of
age"
Justice Avory said:
Surely the object of the rule is
to see that n child who occupies q seat
shall pay. The rule lays it down that
| II there are two children under ten
only one fare shall be paid in respect
| Of them"
| MIR. Terrell contended that an infant
| in arms would have TO be paid for, as
! it was child. For the purpose of the
regulations the home secretary had
| divided the whole OF humanity into
| two classes--those over ten and those
under ten. Those over ten were extra
| persons and those under ten were
children, and il there were two I'M
der ten they paid as one.
| II. II. Given, for the respondent.
submitted that the magistrate was
right. He contended that the meaning
which the appellant sought TO give
| to the rules was wrong. He instanced
| the case Of the hanson cab. which
was licensed for two passengers II
| the appellant were right, ii would
mean that a woman with her baby
could not be accompanied In han
som by her husband.
| The Lord Chief Justice, In dismiss
ing the appeal. said he thought the
magistrate was right. The sole ques-
ton was whether an infant in arms
was to be paid for as person under
the regulations issued by the home Of
| fee, 1t was quite clear. he said. that
| the provision was with regard to Z
ciiild ors toAtwo4 sstTitare a., and ss.s"cihil d
there was intended to cover and in
! clude the case OF an infant in arms
Mr.. Terreifs argument was right Ht
thought the argument was not right
| He agreed with Mr.. Giveen that i
would seem to lead to an absurdity Il
| child" in this regulation were con-
strued to include infant in arms"