APPEAL UPHELD

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 189, 7 May 1940, Page 3

APPEAL UPHELD

Heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations “I think that the purpose of tbe regulations is to prevent from operating on the road a vehicle which, in fact, together with the weight of its loud, exceeds two tons, unless it is licensed as a heavy motor-vehicle,” said the Chief' Justice (Sir Alicliael Alyers), referring to the Heavy Alotor Vehicle Regulations, 1932, in a reserved decision given in the Supreme Court, Welliugtou, yesterday.

The AA'ellington City Corporation was appellant and Blurga Bhula respondent in an appeal from a. decision by Air. Stout, S..AL, in dismissing an information against Bhula ou the ground that trs his vehicle could not be licensed under tlie regulations it was not; a. heavy motor-vehicle, and that respondent was not guilty of the offence charged. . “The learned magistrate- states in the case that it was proved or admitted that after September 20, 1939, and before the date of hearing before the magistrate, respondent applied to the AA'ellington City Council for a heavytraffic licence in respect of the vehicle and tendered the amount of the fees payable for such licence, but the council refused to issue a licence and to accept payment of the amount of the fees so tendered upon the ground that the construction of the vehicle was such that it could not safely carry a load of sufficient weight to ‘bring the gross weight of tlie vehicle mid its load above two tons,” said the Chief Justice. “In these circumstnnces tlie learned magistrate held that inasmuch as the vehicle could not be licensed under the Heavy Alotor-Vehicle Regulations. 1932. it was not a heavy motor-vehicle and that consequently respondent w;rs not guilty of the offence charged. He therefore dismissed the information.

“I find myself unable to agree with the learned magistrate’s views,” the Chief Justice said. “The expression ‘maximum load’ in both s. 166 of the Public AVorks Act and the regulations made thereunder is not, in my opinion, the same thing as either carrying capacity or manufacturer’s rating. I Think that the purjwse of the regulations is to prevent from operating (i.e., using and driving) on tlie road a vehicle which in fact together with the weight of its load exceeds two tons, unless it is licensed as a heavy motor-vehicle; and, in fact, this particular vehicle was being operated on September 20 on a road in the city of AA’ellington without being licensed as a, heavy motor-vehicle. ’’.Either respondent is, or he is not, entitled to a heavy motor-vehicle licence. If he is entitled and the city council has wrongly refused to give him tr licence lie lias his remedy by mandamus. If lie is not entitled to such a licence but nevertheless 'operates’ his vehicle so as to bring it in fact within the definition of ‘motor-lorry’ or ‘heavy motor-vehicle’ I cannot see that ho is in any different position from the owner of a motor-lorry who is entitled to a licence’ but who chooses to operate his vehicle without having obtained one. "The determination apiiealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to tbe magistrate with a direction to enter a conviction.”