NOT A "PERSON."

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 150, 27 June 1934, Page 9

NOT A "PERSON."

CORPSE IN A HEARSE.

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.

HEAVY TRAFFIC VEHICLE.

A decision that a hearse came under the regulations of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, and that a dead body could not be considered to be a person within the meaning of the Act, was given by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning, in delivering an oral reserved judgment in the case in which the Auckland City Council prosecuted Michael McCarthy, undertaker, of Avondale. The defendant was charged with having operated a heavy traffic motor vehicle, a.motor hearse, along Manukau Road, without having a heavy traffic license. Mr. C. E. Clarke, who appeared for defendant at the hearing, raised the point as to- whether a motor hearse came within the meaning of the heavy traffic regulations, and he contended that it was in the nature of a private motor car or vehicle. In giving judgment this morning, Mr. McKean said that under the Motor Vehicles Act a motor car wae defined as a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle, designed solely or principally for the carriage of persons not exceeding nine in number. The magistrate added that he thought a certain amount of common sense had to be exercised. A hearse was not designed "solely or principally for the carriage of pereons." A dead person ceased to be a "person" in the eyes of the law, and, while it was true that a hearse incidentally carried two persons, it was not "solely or principally" for the carriage of persons, and wae therefore liable to the traffic fees. Mr. Hogan, in reply to a question by the magistrate, said the defendant had been operating for twelve months without a heavy traffic license, for which the annual fee was £5 2/. The magistrate imposed a fine of £5. Mr. Clarke then said that defendant was only in a small way of business and that the prosecution was really in the nature of a test case. A big firm of undertakers in the city had steadfastly maintained that it .was not liable to pay a heavy traffic fee. In counsel's opinion the heavy traffic regulations were not meant to apply to a hearse. Mr. McKean said that, in view of the fact that defendant was in a small way of business, he would reduce.the fine from £5 to £1 and costs 10/. "If there are any more of these cases the fines will be more substantial," added Mr. McKean. • At the hearing Mr. G. R, Hogan, chief traffic inspector for the Auckland City Council, prosecuted, and Mr. C. E. Clarke represented the defendant.