Highways Board's Power Challenged

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 390, 26 June 1928, Page 1

Highways Board's Power Challenged

OVER-WEIGHTED LORRY APPEAL BEING HEARD Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. The Highways Board’s power to declare certain roads to be “classified roads” for the purpose of limiting the weight of traffic thereon is challenged in a case now before the Appeal Court. A Full Court, consisting of their Honours Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. Justice Smith, and Mr. Justice Blair, is engaged this morning in hearing an appeal of the officer of the Main Highways Board, Mr. N. Godkin, against the decision of Mr. E. Page, S.M., in dismissing the information laid against N. G. Newman, a motor-lorry driver, who was charged in the Lower Court “that he did, on a classified road, operate a motorlorry which, with its load, exceeded the weight for which the road was, by the Motor-lorry Regulations of 1927, declared to be available. The facts were that, acting under

powers professed to be conferred by section 19 of the Public Works Act, 1924, the Governor-General, by Order-in-Council of March 24, 1925, gave to the Minister in respect of any Government roads, and to the Main Highways Board, inter alia, the power to classify certain roads as being available for the use of motor-lorries of not more than a specified weight. In pursuance of these powers, the Main Highways Board declared the read in question, Horokiwi Gorge to Paekakariki, to come within the provisions of one of the specific classes. Defendant, in the Lower Court, was charged with a breach of these regulations. For the defence, it was alleged that the regulation by the Governor-General was invalid, in that it purported to delegate to the Minister or to the Highways Board a duty which was alone entrusted to the GovernorGeneral in Council. The magistrate held, in conformity with this view, that the road had not been validly classified for the reason that both the regulation and the subsequent action of the Main Highways Board were nullity, and dismissed the information. From this decision the Main Highways Board’s appeal is now proceeding. Counsel for the appellant is Mr. A. E. Urrie, and for the respondent Mr. D. Perry. The court reserved its judgment.