SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2828, 20 July 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

HUTT BOROUGH BY-LAWS

THE LICENSING OF VEHICLES

_ Yesterday His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer heard a case on. appeal from tho decision of Mr. D. G. - A. Cooper, S.M., in tho ease of Arthur Mills, inspector for the Hutt Borough Council, against Leonard Cloake, carrier, and proprietor of motor wagon. The Magistrate had dismissed an information laid by tho Hutt Borough Council, which claimed that Leonard Cloake could not carry heavy traffic in tho Hutt Borough npon a license granted in Petone, and the appeal was from that decision. Mr. E. P. Bunny, for the council, contended that carriers had no right to carry on heavy traffic in the Hutt Borough without a license from that borough. The distance between each \ws of no moment. Mr. T. Young's argument for the respondent was that the Municipal Corporations Act authorised carriers to carry on traffic within five miles from tho borough in. which they were licensed; and ithat Mr. Cloake, having 'paid a license fee to the Petone Borough, did not require to take out a license from tlio, Hutt Borough in order to enable him to ply his calling within five miles of Petone in any direction. Judgment was reserved. MOTOR-CAR COLLISION. Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, heard a cuso on appeal from the Magistrate's decision in. a inotor-car accident. Last October Mr. A. de B. Brandon and Mx> Harold W. Brawn, both driving motorcars in the Horokiwi Valley, collided, and tho former sued Mr. Brown for .£sl) damages, and tho Magistrate, Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., gave judgment for tho defendant, observing that both parties wero to blame. It was from this judgment that Mr. Brandon appealed, arid ho was represented yesterday by Mr. T. W. Hislop, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for the respondent. Mr. Hislop submitted that there was no evidence 'to support tho Magistrate's finding, that the appellant had contributed to the causing of the collision; that the Magistrate having found the respondent was going at too great a speed'he ought to have found for the appellant, and that respondent was responsible for tho accident. | Mr. .J. J. M'Grath contended that the I Magistrate's finding was Conclusive,. and was made after visiting that part of the road whero the collision took place.- If both drivers had applied their brakes they could have stopped their cars and avoided tho accident, and if appellant had driven only one foot further over on the road, the Magistrate held, the accident would have been avoided. There ivus little or no question of law involved; it was ; a question of fact and 'tho Magistrate's finding' on tho facts could not, Mr. M'Grath submitted, be sot aside; besides, tho evidence showed that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence. 1 His-Honour said ho would consider his decision. '

REPAIRS TO TAXI-CAB. His Honour Sir Robert Stout, Chief heard smother case- on appeal concerning a claim made by Sylvester 'Headland, trading as Headland and Robinson, -engineers, for .£B6, repairs and overhaul to a taxi-cab, against Michael Kearney, of Wellington, taxiproprietor, and a counter-claim bv Kearney a,gainst Headland for £98 lGs., lotalleged defective workmanship and damages for loss of uso of car. In tho Court below , the Magistrate gave judgment in favour of Headland for ,£oi 25., including costs; and gave judgment also for Headland on the counter-claim; and it'ivas from this decision that M. Kearney appealed. He- was represented by Mr. P. Levi, with him Sir. P. W. Jackson, and Mr. J, ,1. M'Grath appeared for Headland in support'of tho judgment. Mv. Levi contended that tho judgment was against the weight of. evidence, and that the, contract to repair was on entire one; and had been partial towards completion; further, that tho charges were excessive, and that thero was undue delay in tho completion of the repairs.

■ Mr. ,1. M'Crath submitted that, the Magistrate's finding-.was'-in. accord with the evidence, and tho terms of tho contract, which was not an entire contract, but an ordinary contract .to repair. There was. nothing before the Court to show that the charges were other than usual, and he submitted tho appeal should bo dismissed. • His Honour said, ho would tako time to consider his judgment. A QUESTION OF MOITALS. Hi 3 Honour Sir Robert Stout,"- Chief Justice,' also heard an appeal of Emily Thomas, .married woman, of 'Wellington, against the decision of the Magistrate, !ir. I). 0. A. Co'opei, tvM., wlio had convicted the appellant of keeping a house of ill-fame contrary to tiie provisions of tho Wellington City By-law, I'JOS, and adjudged her to pay u lino of .£lO and seven shillings. Court costs. Air. J. J. M'Grath appeared for tho appellant, and 7llr. .I'. ». -K. Macassey for tlia Solicitor-General. Mr. M'Grath, in the course of his argument, submitted there had not been sufficient evidence in the Court below to convict the appellant, and held that the ■by-iaw under which conviction was recorded was not only unreasonable, but was ultra vires. Being u by-law dealing with tho question of morals, it came within tho limitation imposed by section 37, subsection (e), of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, which was to ■ the cllect that "inasmuch as it is inexpedient that questions of religion or morals should be regulated by bylaw, no by-law shall be valid if a breach thereof would involve a breach only of some religious or moral rule." There was ni> diutmctioit between n brothel and a house of ill-fame, and the .English and New Zealand authorities clearly showed that the evidence in the case did not disclose an offence on the part of tho appellant; and the by-law was manifestly repugnant to the laws of New Zealand, and therefore came within the limitation provided by the Section quoted. Mv. Macassey contended that the judgment of the Magistrate was sound. It was certain if one-woma'n-houses of illfame were allowed to increase they would be inimical to the good rule of the borough, and a danger to public morals and good conduct, because such houses would attract undesirable persons to the locality, to the disturbance ol neighbours. The by-law, counsel argued, was properly made, and "might create another offence to that created by statute, so long as the provisions are not inconsistent," and the by-law in no way conflicted with statute law. The Crimes Act made keeping a bawdy house an indictable offence,. and if a house was kept and was used us a brothel or for the purposes of prostitution, it was a violation of the Justice of Peace Act, 1908. Mr. Macassey referred to aises_ already decided in support of his submissions. The Court reserved judgment.