COUNTIES’ BYE-LAW.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 October 1923, Page 4

COUNTIES’ BYE-LAW.

T'PITELD BY SUPREME COURT. .] CDGAIEXT ON APPEAL. (Ki-oim Elthum Argus, Tuosciny, Sept i*At h). Tin' appeal of an Inglewood motorl,u- propriltor, A\ in. .Millet- Archibald, ag:tiit'if. a conviction by Mr A. M. Alow),,m. S.M.. at .Si ration! on July 1, for pi villi; for hire without a license, lias 1 'em dismissed by His Honour, Sir Ercderick C'liapnian, in a reserved judgment. This means that the Ta'anaki Counties joint by-law relative to the licensing of motor vehicles plying for hire has been upheld. In his judgment 11 is Honor stated that, the np|>ellant was not licensed in re-peel to his ear within the Stratford or any county and the fact oi his plying for hire in the eonnty was undisputed. The fuels on which appellant relied were as follows An earlier informal ion had been laid against turn for having similarly plied for hire on July T, 11)22. On the hearing of that information lie produced what purported to he a license dated June 2d, 1022. On the production of this license the magistrate had considered that he was hound by its actual terms and had dismissed the information. One of the defences raised was that the joint by-law ''section 11) was invalid, because ii was repugnant to section lib's of t'he Municipal Corporation Act, 1020, in that, it did not contain an exception in favour ot vehicles. the owners of which “mostly ply” within live miles of Stratford borough in accordance with section fijSl, of the Act. “This novel (piestion might have been raised in innumerable instances" commented His Honor, “and certainly would have been raised it this court had been obliged to say that a by-law was not merely binding in the particular ease, hut was to all intents void."

“This by-law is in ordinary form and the answer is that given by the respondent's counsel, namely, that the proper way to interpret section Hash is to regard it. as having the same effect as il the limit s of the borough where uio drill r mostly plies had been cxlended in his tavniir to a distance oi live miles beyond ils actual boundaries. That is the interpretation that has long been acted ott and 1 have no doubt that it is oi rreei." The other defence was ihai the matter was "res jnsdienta” (already settled), and it being suggested that, as between the parties, the magisl rate’s dcri-ioii was that there was in fact a license which protected the appellant, riis Honor stated that for several re a scu.s thi.- could not prevail, and quoled authorities in support, el his contention. "The aecfuillal of Ihe deiendanfc by tbl niagislrate," lie concluded, "mi the June ground that appellant was licensed on the 7th even though based i'ii a tin-tin-; that his lin ose was in being from June 2ot h cannot he held lo hind the magistrate, or any magistrate, to lind the same fact with reference to a different charge when he knows from later evidence that lie was misled." At the hearing Mr 11. It. Billing appeared for the appellant. Mr A. C'nlonian (Stratford') tor respondent, ami Mr J. 1.. Weir (Eltiiam) for the joint count:e:. Costs uere allowed against the appellant at L’S Bs.