BUS LICENSES

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 48, 20 November 1926, Page 9

BUS LICENSES

QUESTION OF DUAL CONTROL

WHAT DID LEGISLATURE

INTEND?

BY Telegraph.—Press association

Auckland, November 19.

The question of licenses for motorbuses plying from one licensing district to another forms the subject of an important judgment delivered by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M.. The Takapuna Borough Council, as No. 2 licensing district, prosecuted A. H. Smith for running without a license a bus service between Devonport," which is in No. 1 district, and Takapuna. Defendant applied to No; 1 licensing authority for a license, but the application has not yet been dealt with. The Magistrate remarked that as defendant was still carrying on the service and bad not obtained a license from any licensing authority, be had committed, technically at any rate, a breach of the provision of the Act. However, it would be wrong to penalise him while the application was still pending. The real question at issue was whether it was necessary for defendant to apply, to a licensing authority’ for each district for a license for his' omnibus service. To give effect to this contention certain alterations to the Act would be necessa r v. .

“It mav be that it was the intention of the Legislature to give to each licensing authority the right to control all omnibus services operating in its district,” said the Magistrate. “If that intention has not Leen expressed in clear and unambiguous language it cannot be given effect to by a consideration of the policy of the Act I think the language of the Act is not sufficiently clear to enable me to say that the Legislature intended that two licenses should be necessary for any one service.” After dealing with the question of the insurance policy which was required to be deposited with “the licensing authority,” the Magistrate said: "It seems to me the idea of dual control is one that did not occur to the Legislature. The constitution of Takapuna, as a separate district forming an island, in the midst of a wide district may have been an afterthought. . Certainly it ■■rented a position for which provisions, necessarv if anv sort of dual control had been intended, have not been made. In the circumstances I think this charge should be dismissed. As the matter is one of difficulty and is regarded as of some importance,. 1 have discnssed’it with my fellow Magistrates and they Jagree with me.”