Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BUS LICENSING CASE

VALIDITY OFBY-LAW.

CONVICTION fAT NAPIER

N APIER.;-Obt. 20

Following the recent prosecution by tlie New • Zealand Ritihvays ’' department ot .Maleoini Taylor on a' charge of plying for ’tide ak a borough omnibus -witi;' a mOtor-cca'b, ,Mi A. 31. Mowleni-■ this ’morning ci el i vpi-ed his reserved, ij tidighien t , a ncl entered a conviction ’against defendant, 'imposing a hne of ,£2 and £2 Ids. costs. Security for appeal, was fixed at £lO 10s. .His* Worship stated - that, under 1 the by-laws, defendant did hot possess the license requisite for hint to ply in tlie way „he had, ; been doing, 'l'p enable fom to continue as he had, but. within thft limits iof. the by-laws, he required • license for a borough ,otnnlbu«.

At the hearing the facts were not disputed, counsel for defendant notifying 'the Court that no evidence was to fee called. He relied on the assertionthfit..the by-law was invalid and lie, submitted that the, point at issue was decided by Mr Justice Qstler inthe cape Wilson versus Hamilton Borough Council. Counsel further relied oil ths fact that no prosecution of any kind had been commenced against defendant though tlie licensing authorities knew defendant’s method* when this license was renewed last June. v- ; ' / - After a search though .the of the Napier Borough by-laws, ’ his Worship did not think, if application wi?i-e made to the Supremo Court tp quash’the council’s by-law, in so "fair as it referred to ’horough omnibuses, on-," the grounds of ■ unreasonableness, tlie same success, would result.' as wj»s obtained in the case of \Vi)cocks versus Hamilton Boro ugh Conn HI. • Hfs Worship was satisfied- that the ion of Mr Justice'Ostler did not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. By section 032- of by-law XXIV it was an offence to drive a vehicle "of any class other than that specified. in the license. Defendant was therefore convicted;. Similar charges against three other defendants in the same service were adjourned- sine die, -‘pending the issue of the appeal.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19301022.2.5

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 22 October 1930, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
336

BUS LICENSING CASE Hokitika Guardian, 22 October 1930, Page 2

BUS LICENSING CASE Hokitika Guardian, 22 October 1930, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert