MOTOR REGULATIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 180, 1 August 1925, Page 17

MOTOR REGULATIONS.

HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES. TEST CASE IN HAMILTON. (Hy Telegraph.—Own Correspoudent.) HAMILTON", Friday. The question of whether a motor lorry owner could be compelled to pay the heavy traffic license fees imposed by the new motor regulations while.the borough by-laws also governing a scale of license fees were still in force occupied the attention of Mr, H. A. Young, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, Hamilton, to-day, when the Wafson Bus Co., omnibus proprietors, and J. Jebson, carrier, were charged with using a motor vehicle on a public road without a heavy traffic licenSe in conformity with the new motor regulations. The bus drivers of the town were behind the Watson Co., and the Carriers', Association behind Jebson, the prosecution being brought simply in the form of a test case. Mr. A. L. Tompkins presented the bus drivers' side of the case, Mr. J. F. Strang doing similar duty for the carriers. It appeared that the defendant bus company had, in fact, already paid the road license fees for the year, amounting to £21 for their seven omnibuses, and they, therefore, objected to paying the license fees imposed by the Motor Regulations. However, the license for tlie seven, buses, would, under the new regulations, amount to no less than £150 as conipared with £21. The defence made it clear that they did not desire to evade their responsibilities, but what tbey did want was the court's ruling as to which license fees they had to pay. It was unfair, both defendants contended, that they should have to pay [both. Are Buses Liable? The board solicitor (Mr. F. A. Swarbrick), who appeared for Traffic Inspector Courtney, told his Worship that both sides were agreed as to the facts, and the question evolved itself into a dispute as to whether lorries —and buses were included in the term—were liable for the payment of license under the Motor Regulations. On behalf of Jebson, Mr. Strang pointed out that the new regulations came into force only in March last. They were the outcome of long discussions that had taken place between the Government on the one hand and the local bodies on the other hand. The lorry drivers, realising that some such legislation was to come about, decided not to pay any license fees until they received some definite ruling. Counsel contended that the Hamilton Board bylaw was a valid by-law, and it would be for the board solicitor, if he was to succeed in his prosecution, to prove that it was invalid. Borough Council's Powers. Briefly, counsel contended that the borough council had, however, to prescribe license fees for vehicles engaged in heavy traffic work. While the borough by-laws were in force, Jebson and other carriers, in common' with him, were liable for the fees prescribed to be paid. They considered, therefore, that this liability exempted them from liability to pay the further fees exacted by the Motor Regulations. Mr. Tomkins drew the attention of the court to the fact that his clients had paid the council's tax for the use of the roads, but now they had been told that this tax or license should not have been paid, and that, they would have to pay over again under the Motor Regulations Act. Counsel submitted, (1) That the , borough council bad power to tax heavy i vehicles; (2) that the by-law in question was for the purpose of collecting revenue for the council; (3) that a by-law might be valid in part while invalid in other parts; and (4) that the by-law must be assumed to be valid until it was either quashed or rescinded. Mr. Swarbrick, in presenting the Council's side of the case, said. that the Municipal Corporations Act included some definitions of heavy traffic, and it was to the new motor regulations that 1 they must look for a definition of what was a heavy lorry. Further, the by-law made no distinction in its scale of charges between a vehicle that weighed two tons and one that weighed ten tons. "The by-law was, in fact, made by the local bodies in a mistaken attempt to collect revenue," was the rather illuminating and refreshing manner in which Mr. Swarbrick described it at a later stage of his address. Continuing, counsel stated that his firm, as solicitors to the Hamilton Borough Council, had advised the city fathers prior to the passing of the by-law that they had no power to collect fees in this way. However, the Council intended shortly to rescind the by-law. The true purpose of the Council bylaw providing for the payment of license fees by lorry drivers was, continued Mr. Swarbrick, to regulate the conduct of the persons engaged in the business. It was simply a carrying into effect of the proper precautions, as to, amongst other things, the ability of the drivers, and as to the safety of the public. After hearing lengthy legal argument his Worship decided to reserve his decision.