TRANSPORT OF GOODS

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21510, 27 June 1935, Page 8

TRANSPORT OF GOODS

HEARING OF TWO CASES CONTINUED LEGAL ARGUMENT EEFORE FULL COURT U-itr/w .'isocr.vTso.v TEr.B««Ajr.) V/ELL[NGTON. .June 2<>, Full Court continued the hear-i-u; to-day of two ca~e? which have I'.' --n brcu'(l! f to test trio validity of y;""u':iHr-ns fpverning the transport ot nr.. There are:— |'l) An antral from the decision ot Mr J. H. Fa'mon. stipendiary majrisll : 'it W'pr""in;»i. convicting Archie :''rc* , "rk , J: V/il e on of carryim; on n or'-; -vie" between Waneaehu and Y.'- otherwise than pursuant to <f>:; .-'ii'lrri'v of a goods s°rvice license :■ rr!"il"d 11nd• ■ r ih- 1 Trnrrport Lieensint; ■'■■ d lcontrary to section 20 (1) (>■ tiv; 'fran e.ort tC.oorh) Order. 1933end red ion <i~ of Iho Transport I ,A | ')') ( . O A ea: Maurice Ordish Fatr11[ii': t a,eai : r I Robins and Company, troiri Donedin. which deal:: with similar facts. f):i IK« bc-rrh ore the Chi' i Justice (the I ft. foil Kir Michael Myers). Mr Jus15c llcT'invn, Mr Justice Plan", Mr .Jo-'ice Smith, and Mr Justice Kcnrer'y. (K,-, fir; , t rn . :p M" P. l. Diclrson iV'- p-T.-ni) nrcT's for the npnell^nt. i v V'"'! -oi>, end ;!)-> Crown Solicitor ' ~' A. R C'.i'T'O. with Him the Crown •'*; ,!f, i'( r at U'err-enui OVT- N R P.a'm !—• ''ie re r )"''d"nt Rrn-'-t Hunter Bar"•'■l 'raTc "'"cr. In th" second ense "■lf Cu.t : '- : 'nd Mr Pain anpeai for r." ;' n, i'-l!'"it and Mr C. T. Baylee el>N:i"d ; ni f.«r tho resnondents. Me n"vlc." concluded hir- are'iimcnt f>'i b half of Robins and Company. rhortJv after the court reaueied this mornin;;. He -,va ■' followed by Mr Currie, who 'ra verged briefly the three classes of subordinate legislation under the Transport Licensing Act. namely, the •ransport control areas under section 15. the Transport (Goods) Order under vrlion 47. and the transport licensing '! :ods service regulations under Section 59 Submissions to Court He then made the following submissions to the court.— it) Section 47 does authorise the application of section 43 with modificat tons. (2) Nothing in the Order-in-Counctl eoes further than what amounts to a ntoti lication. «;$• As au alternative, that even if ■ 'cii n 43 cannot be modified, then the oibvi of :<-■<;iion 47 is automatically to aoniy lection j;{ Irrespective of any "I'n in lb" Order-'n-Council. e!j That sub-sect-on (4) of section 47 no:! sub-scci ion <f>) of section 60 rc- . irici {he p-iver of the court to ex.o, i la th:- order. ej) That the woids in sub-section (I) "f section 17. "as he thinks lit." eiii .rv the powers of the Govc-rnor-Ge -era!. i en That if the Order-in-Council is not iceed by the court to be !;ood as a whole, then the doctrine of scvi-r----:b:lhy would be applicable and the remainder of the Order-in-C'ouncil ■' old i,o re,o(l. Mi' flaai second counsel for the li' : 1 i■ ■a-ithorities, submitted that the d' elrine of severability could be ■ ipplierl to the regulations in the s-;me v. ay as it .applied lo by-laws, and that if the court, found any part of the reeulatiorr-' ultra vires, that part could be deleted without n'Tcctiiy; or vitiat- j in:; the remainder of the regulation:;. I Mr Ravjr— v/as when the I court adjourned until to-morrow. |