OMATA TOLL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXIII, Issue 37, 19 February 1901, Page 2

OMATA TOLL CASE.

JUDGMENT tfOR DEFENDANT. Morris v: Hooke*.—ln this case, in which the plaintiff; toll-keeper at Omatnj sued for ls.j amount of toll refusal to b• paid Ity defendant;, Mr. Stanford, S.M., gava his reserved judgment on Monday morning. After briefly referring to the facts, His Woißbip said the qu stions were those of law, find were :—(1) Aro tolls legally imposed at this gate? (2) Have the requirements of the Act as to notifying the public of certain matters been complied with? Now no'hing feems clearer than that a County Council is the criature of the Statute which created it, that it has neither duties nor rights other tban those in the Sta.ute Book, that it has none of what Rie somewb .t quaintly called the common law right* whioh have been said to have appertained to those ancient corporations in England which are based on royal charer. When, therefore, the question arigfs has a County Council acted legally or not, it is only neeessiry to cuk to b Statu* e which lays down l.gui dm.tJ, (He quoted Pcllock on Contract*, p. 121.] The right of imposing taxation througb a toll ga'.e is conferred on all counties in this col-nv by "The Public Works Act, 1894," in whioh the onditionsai* laid down with some particularity, or whioh, and on which only, the couatj may demand tolls, as in all cases when taxation is imp-s-d the Ssatu e must Li construed in a eeose liberal to the sub ject. " The Public Works Act, 1984,' Sectians 142 to 159, givssthe privilogj, under certain conditions, of ollecting tolls to 8v «ry ccunty. Ihe question U : Has the T rantki County Council fu'lille 1 these conditions or not ? Swjiion 142 (1) says: " The Board may cause tolls te be collec'ed." Section 143 says: " No tolls shall be payableunUss tbe following conditions a< e observed (interalia): (1) Thts.a!eoftollsistobe publicly notified for fourteen days before tecoming first payable. There are several other conditions which I need not notice he:e. The method adopt id by the County Council was as follows: - On the 27th day of Nov mbsr, 1899, a resolution was carried that cer.ain toll gates, the Oiuata, beitig one, i>e established for "tbrea years." This resolution was moneously advertised for 14 days in a local paper— trroaeously, beiausi the advertisement wae silent as to the limit of three years, and read as though t>>e Council had resrfv«d to establish toll gates in perpetuity. It would, perhaps, be more correct to say that the resolution of the Con- oil wss not advertised al all in 1889 for 14 days, and it is not even alleged that U has ever been advertised since. Since 1889 the practice has been for the Couucil every year to pass a wsolution " that tondara be called for leasing the toll gates," or some similar phrase. It is now coateudid that the Council has every year " caused tolls to be collected." This is no doubt correct in a strictly verbal Bense, but since there has been no advertisement for 14 dny* since the inaccurato advertisement of 1889, it seoms clear that the Council has iiOt caused tolls to ba collected legally, since in has a>t complied with one important condMea impesed by the Legislature. I ircline to the opinion that had the Council advertised their intention to cause tolls to be collected in any one year siuce 1889, it would hive complied wi'h the condition in the Act, I now come to the second point raised by tl.e defence It wae proved that payment of '.oil at tbe Omata gate cleared the Junction Road and Waiwakaibo gate-i. Sction 154 says "whenever auy toll ja f e c!e.us any other toll gate in the samt or any osher district tha words "clears the gate" shall be painted on the beard mentioned i> Section 14S (the board containing th>. scala of tolls and the name of the toll keeper), which bourd muttt be placed in a conspicuous place on or over the toll-house or ferry-houso so as to bi conveniently ret.d by any person fron whom a toll is demanded. Si-otioni 143 and 154 must be rad tether The obvious intention of .Section 154 is that the travelling public should havj the plainest notice than if psid at one g ite the payment woulc e'ear them at certain othe-' tf*tos. Thii right of ctaaranca is a reduction in bb< scale of tolls, and th t t-ta'u'-e s-ijs ?h:*l bo giv.n the same promimnco as th< scale of tolls, ai d that if this is nol done co toll* at all sball b3 pay-.bit This is how I read tha two S etionNow it was proved in evidence th • tbe clearance notice of Section 154 wai not on the board on which the seal;; o tolls appeared, but en ano'her boan which was sometimes fixe 1 to the toll house, sometimes on the fenc, some times en the ground. By smi travellers th'i board h :d b< en oeeo, bj others it had i:ot be.n s j en. Th very evil which tbe legis'atun intended to prevent by enacting Sectioi 154, had occurred, and the public ha' no proper no'ice at all that pay men at Omata e'eared at two ether #at.6' (see Greyson v. Potter, 48, L.J.). 1 have no hesi' at ion in saying tha*-- n( tolls era payable at the Oaiata. giti because no sufficient clearance boiin notifies the public as to their ligiirs. Judgment for defendant with solio : tor's fie, £2 2s. Icer'ify that thi action litigated i* of import a ice to ( class of persons and of public interest Tha case is to be taken to the Cour of Appeal.