MOTOR CARAVAN.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19220, 28 January 1928, Page 17

MOTOR CARAVAN.

FOR CARTING BENZINE.

A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ?

The question of whether a motor caravan, used on only one or two days in a year for conveying supplies to » farm, comes under the regulations governing motor-lorries occupied in commercial enterprises, and should have a license accordingly was argued at some length in the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr E. D. Mosley, fcJ.M. who reserved his decision. Frederick William Johnston, lawyer, of Christchurch, was charged with permitting the use of a motor-lorry that was unlicensed, and pleaded not guilty. Mr R. J. Loughnan, City Solicitor, prosecuted for the City Council, and stated that the dispute was a neat point of law raised by the defendant The facts were admitted. The vehicle was carrying benzine intended to be used on defendant's farm. "Mr Johnston is not content with his legal gains, but runs a farm as a further outlet for his energy," said Mr Loughnan "Yes, I like to be. a producer," rejoined Mr Johnston. The vehicle and driver, ho said, weighed just over two tons. Mr Loughnan said it was contended that the vehicle, which was not licensed, was a motor-lorry, and as such required a license. The point was whether it was used for commercial purposes. Mr Johnston referred to a report of a recent Timaru case, in which the Borough Council proceeded against the Power Board, which used lorries to cart material. One of the main factors was that the articles were not for re-sale. Mr Justice Adams had ruled that the venture was not a commercial one, as there had been no profits in the ordinary sense. He contended that in his case there was no commercial venture. If a doctor had a heavy car. and was attending country cases, taking with him nurses and perhaps a fellow doctor, bringing the weight of the vehicle to over two tons, could it be said that because there was the element of_ profit it was a commercial undertaking. Mr Mosley: I doubt if it could. Mr Johnston added that the vehicle in question was used for caravamng, and was used perhaps twice a year by his son for taking supplies to the farm. In reply to the Magistrate, Mr Loughnan said that it did not matter if the vehicle was used one day in the year or 365 days. There was no difference, he said, between carting benzine to a farm and carting wheat to a mill and flour from it. There was a profit in each case, and in each capital was emploved. Mr Mosley said that during the last 25 years the term "commerce" had been vastly extended, and he must accept that extension as fact applicable to the laws of to-day. Hoaever, he v.ould give his decision later on.