HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC BY-LAW.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2765, 31 July 1924, Page 3

HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC BY-LAW.

MAGISTRATE UPHOLDS MANAWATU COUNTY COUNCIL. CON VIOTION RECORD ED. The ease in which N. I. W. Brown end Coy., of Rongol.ea, were prosecuted by the Manawatu County Council for failing to take out a. heavy t.rallic license as required by the bylaws for using the roads in the winter months, was concluded iu (he Kcikling Magistrate’s Court on Monday when Mr R. M. Watson. S.M. upheld the by-laws and entered a conviction. The action was heard on July 3rd when the defendant company was charged with using its lorry on the r'iixlon-llituilangi Road without obtaining a heavy traffic license costing £25 in accordance with section GO of the Manawatu County’s bylaws. The facts so far as the vehicles being on the road without such a license' were concerned were not. disputed, but defendants argued that the by-laws ns far as they related to the present, proceedings, were invalid on the following grounds :

1. The control of the road had passed from the Manawatu County to the Main Highways Board. 2. Section 50 of the by-laws was meaningless; it was also unreasonable that there" should be no dilfeve.hiintion in the by-lows as between (ho different weights of motor vehicles comprising heavy traffic; or in the alternative, that there sho-uld-be no proper scale of heavy motor iraffia license fees increasing according to weight of the vehicle, or the width of the tires, or in some other manner which would lone tin effect of the motor vehicle doing the greater damage paying the larger fee; that the by-laws were contradictory in reject lo heavy motor Ira flic license fees, section 39 being contrary lo section 55; and that the by-laws were unreasonable in that they made no provision for heavy motor traffic vehicles from outside the couty using the road. In a lengthy written judgment, the Magistrate decided that a conviction must be recorded and in view of the fleet that there was considerable doubt as to the position, he would not impose a line. The defendants would lie ordered to pay court costs 7/-, and solicitors' expenses £3 3/-. Security for appeal was fixed at £ls 15A.