MOTOR LICENSES

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19317, 23 May 1928, Page 3

MOTOR LICENSES

QUESTION OF EXPIRY DATE. DECISION OF MR PAGE, S.M. [THE PRESS Special Service.] WELLINGTON, May 22. A decision of interest to motorists was given by Mr E. Page, S.M., to-day, when he convicted several defendants who were charged with having driven unlicensed motor vehicles. The point at issue was the interpretation to be given to the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1927, in regard to the expiry date of licenses to use motor vehicles and licenses to drive such vehicles. At the outset Mr S. W. Fitzherbert, counsel for a defendant who was charged with having driven without a driver's license for the current year, said that he understood the decision given recently at Hamilton by Mr J. Luxford, S.M., on a similar charge was under appeal. Counsel thought it might be as well to hold) over the hearing of the charge against the defendant until the appeal was dealt with. Mr Page: I think you are in error in stating that that decision is the subject of an appeal. It is a fact that Mr Luxford dismissed some of these informations, but he dismissed them under Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act. Under that section a decision was not subject to appeal. Appearing for another defendant who was charged with having driven an unlicensed _ car, Mr W. P. Rollings Quoted Section 10 of the Act as it now stands: "It shall be the duty of every person being the owner of a motor vehicle to procure annually from a deputy registrar a license to use such motor vehicle." Mr Rollings said that it had been contended that the apparent anomaly caused by striking out the section which fixed the expiry date of motor licenses was overcome by Section 20 of the Acts' Interpretation Act, but he could not see how that -section affected Section 10 of - the Act under review. Clearly the issue of licenses was not invalidated, but it was not correct that licenses expired on March 31st. There was. nothing on licenses themselves to show that they expired on March 31st, and before the expiry took place the section fixing the expiry dlate was repealed. Mr Page: Do you suggest that your license runs on indefinitely bo long as the law stands as it is ? Counsel: I suggest that once a license is carried over March 31st it is kept in force until May 31st, 1929. "Annually" did not necessarily mean at the end of every year, but could mean in or during every year. In view of the fact that the expiry date had been struck out the only reasonable interpretation could be that the license remained! in force after that date.

Senior-Sergeant Scott quoted Section 20 of the Acts' Interpretation Act in support of his contention that the licenses under discussion expired on March 31st, 1928. He pointed out that licenses were available two months before the end of March. There was no obligation on motorists to get their lioenaes in advance, but many preferred to do so. Dealing first with the question of drivers' licenses, Mr Page said) that Section 20 of the 1924 Act provided that it was unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle unless he was the holder of a motor-driver's license. Then Section 21 provided that a license should remain in force until March 31st next after the date on which it is issued andl then expire. It was clear, therefore, that the license contemplated by that Statute was an annual license. By the 1927 Act the date of expiry of the annual license was. altered from March 31st to-May 31st in 6ach year. In view of the alteration it became necessary to repeal that portion of the 1924 Act which provided that a license issued under that Act should expire |on March 31st following the date of issue. It was contended by counsel that, as there was no. statutory provision fixing the date on which a license issued under the 1924 Act should expire, that license became permanently valid. "I am not able to adopt this view," said Mr Page. "This contention . seems to me to be contrary to the plain intention of the Legislature, namely, that the license shall be an annual one, and I think it also conflicts with the letter of the Statute. When the license was issued there was- a specific statutory provision that the dlate of expiry should be March 31st, 1928. There was no power . to grant it for any longer period, and the period for which it was granted has expired. It seems to me that the defendants' contention conflicts with both the spirit and the letter of the Statute. I think the point is also concluded) by Section 20 of the Acts' Interpretation Act. 1 think the same argument is applicable in respect of a motor license. It is true that in respect of a motor license the form which is issued does not mention the date to which it is applicable. The Act specifically says that a license is to be applied for and issued annually. I think, therefore, that in respect of a license for a vehicle the license has been issued and paid for until March 31st, and l at the date it was issued there was _no power to grant it for a longer period." ..Each of the defendants was convicted ancj ordered to pay costs.