CITY TRAFFIC BY-LAWS.
ARE THEY UNREASONABLE?
Argument took place before Mr. W. R. McKean, SM-. to-day at the Magistrate's Court in a case brought by the Auckland City Council (Mr. Mackay i against J. L. Gunning, bus proprietor (Mr. Fieldi. for failing to run according to timetable.
The defence set up was that the bylaw was void, because it was indefinite, unequal in its incidence, and unreasonable. Mr. Field contended that the delegation by the council of its powers to an inspector was wrong. It was absolutely unreasonable for a subordinate omuia.l to have delegated to him the power to decide the time-t-ables to be run by vehicles in the city. It gave the inspector the power, if he chose to exercise it. to cut out all the best paving trips for the omnibuses. He did not say that xvas done but a by-law which gave such powers was surely unreasonable. Mr- Mackay. in reply, said a public corporation must nave the power to regulate traffic, and in connection, therewith, must denl with stands for vehicles and time-tables. Mr. McKean reserved his decision-
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19260119.2.19
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 15, 19 January 1926, Page 5
Word Count
183CITY TRAFFIC BY-LAWS. Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 15, 19 January 1926, Page 5
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Log in