LEGAL POINT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 149, 25 June 1936, Page 17

LEGAL POINT.

COUNSEL NEEDED. TRANSPORT REGULATIONS. COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. i (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) PALMERSTON NORTH, this day. Comment on the fact that he was being asked to decide a difficult point without hearing legal argument was made by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., at Feilding yesterday when the Court was asked to deal with an alleged breach of the transport regulations, which the prosecution suggested was covered by a recent Supreme Court decision. Addressing a traffic officer Mr. Stout said: "It is unfair to me, to defendant and to yourself that I should be asked to decide this matter without legal argument. It is no use coming to me and shying a Supreme Court decision at mo, and saying that that refers to this case. Since that judgment was given the position has altered, and it is clearly a matter of interpretation calling for legal argument. You are not expected to offer that argument and I consider that it is time the Transport Department took the question up and briefed counsel to handle these cases where interpretation of the law is involved."

It often happened, said Mr. Stout, that a case went against the Transport Department, with the result that the Department appealed, and the costs involved fell upon the unfortunate defendant. He was not prepared to hold that a passenger transport service meant a service \vitliiu the definition of the particular regulation in this instance. It was lield that one trip constituted the carrying on of a motor omnibus service. The ease before the Court was one affecting the carrying of goods, and whether one trip in the carrying of goods constituted carrying on a goods service. It was entirely a question of definition and he was unable to go on with the matter unless the case was handled by counsel.

•Mr. C. IT. Barrett, chief traffic inspector to the Transport Department, said that he had argued before about 12 magistrates and several had accepted the Supreme Court decision.

The magistrate replied that he considered that the case should be argued by counsel, and Mr. Barrett agreed that it would be proper if both sides were represented by counsel to have the matter properly argued.

The case was thereupon stood down.