OVERLOADED LORRIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 245, 15 October 1926, Page 9

OVERLOADED LORRIES.

» . 1 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES. } ) ] SUFFICIENT LICENSE NECESSARY. , A reserved judgment was this morning delivered in the Magistrate's Court by Mr. W. R. McKcan, S.M., in the case of the Mount Eden Borough Council (Mr. Terry) v. Lovett (Mr. Allan Moody). Tho defendant was charged under the regulations as to use of motor lorries with permitting a lorry to be used without having obtained a license in accordance with the regulations. The defendant is the owner of a number of lorries which are driven by his employees. In respect of the lorry the subject of the charge he had paid a fee of £16, and had obtained a license for a lorry in Class D, which comprises lorries which with their maximum load exceed 3 J tons in weight, but do not exceed 4 tons. This lorry on 25th June last was driven by one of defendant's employees. It was taken to a weighbridge, where it was found that its total weight was 4 tons scwt 2qv<*. It therefore came within Class E, and aa it is engaged only in the carriage of goods, it was required by the regulations to pay a fee of £20. The defendant had no personal knowledge of the overloading. It was contended that the word "permit" in the regulations implies knowledge on the part of owner, and that as tho defendant had no personal knowledge of the offence, and had instructed his- employees as to the loads they were to carry, he did not permit the lorry to be used, and cannot be convicted. I think, said Mr. McKean, that the meaning of the regulation now in question is that the owner of a lorry must prevent the happening of that which the regulation prohibits. If that be so, then the owner does, within the meaning of the regulation, "permit" an offence which is in fact committed b\ his servant. It is to be noted that by clause 19 of the regulations it is provided that in all proceedings against any person for an offence under the regulations the motor lorry, the subject of the proceedings, is deemed to be unlicensed, or to have an insufficient license unless the person proceeded against produces a sufficient license. The defendant in this case cannot produce a sufficient license. The defendant was convicted und fined £2.