A TRACTION ENGINE CASE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9763, 26 June 1897, Page 10

A TRACTION ENGINE CASE.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

In the Supreme Court yesterday, his Honour Mr Justice Denniston gave judgment in a case Banks (appellant) v Drysdale (respondent). This was a case in which the respondent had been informed against for not having a licenser for a traction engine, as provided by the by-laws of the County Council. The information was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that the by-law was ultra vires and unreasonable, imposing as it did the condition for a license that such traction engine must be certified to be safe and sufficient for public use. The Council appealed, and his Honour now gave judgment. The judgn.ent stated that the appellant Council had made a by-law providing that no person shall use any traction engine, or any vehicle for carrying the go->ds of any other person than its owner, lessee, or driver, or ply for hire with any vehicle for the carriage of passengers or goods, such traction engine or vehicle being over a prescribed Weight, on a road withinthe county, unless the same shall be licensed, and that no license shall be irranted in respect of any vehicle or traction engine which, on such inspection as the County Clerk should require, should appear to be unsafe or insufficient for public use. The respondent to the present case used a traction engine on a county road without a license for the same, such traction engine wasnoteitherforcarrying the goods of any other person than the owner or for plying for hiie for the carriage of passengers or goods. His Honour then referred, to the legislation giving the counties power, and went on to say that none of the provisions entitled the Council to require that a traction engine or other vehicle employed for private purposes shall be safe or sufficient for use by the public. If therefore that was the meaning of the words "unsafe" or "insufficient" for public use the stipulation in question was ultra vires. That it had such meaning was, he thought, clear. It had been contended that the proviso in question if bad was separable from the rest of the by-law, and might be ignored and . disregarded. The county said to a traction engine owner, " You shall not use the county roads unless you are licensed/and we shall not license you unless your engine is in our opinion safe and sufficient for public use." The owner had a right to treat the by-law as a whole. He was not bound to analyse it and decide how much was bad and how much good. He found a by-law imposing an unreasonable requirement as a condition precedent to his receiving a license. He was not bound to treat such by-law as good in part and to apply for a license in accord ance with it. The appeal would be dis missed, with £10 10s costs.