Appeal On Hay Cartage Heard In Supreme Court

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28752, 25 November 1958, Page 7

Appeal On Hay Cartage Heard In Supreme Court

His Honour Mr Justice Adams | was occupied in the Supreme Court at Qreymouth yesterday with the hearing of two appeals against decisions given by magistrates. The first was an appeal by the Transport Department, tnrough its Westport traffic officer (H. A. Loper) against a decision of Mr H. J. Thompson. S.M., in dismissing a charge against Transport (North Canterbury), Ltd. It was alleged that a breach of the 30 mile rail restriction in a goods service licence had been committed. • Mr H. A. Maitland (Westport) represented the Transport Department, and Mr A. C. Fraser (Rangiora) appeared for the respondent company. After hearing their arguments and submissions his Honour reserved his decision. Mr Maitland submitted that, although the 30 mile rail restriction was irksome, it was highly important and valuable to the Railways Department as protection against road competition. He said that defendant on March 26 took a load of 120 bales of hay, which it owned, from Waikari to the farm of a man O’Connor near Westport. When stopped, the driver claimed he was taking the hay to Inangahua Junction—a journey which would not represent a breach of the 30 mile rail restriction.

However, the hay was roaded through the Buller Gorge, being carried 44 miles in opposition to a rail route. Prosecuted for a breach in the Westport Magistrate’s Court on July 22, defendant made a successful defence, the Magistrate dismissing the information. He supported the defence contention that, as O’Connor’s farm was on the south bank of the Buller river, the route followed by the road, as against

the railways* route on the north bank requiring the hay to be carted back by road from Westport, the railway was not, in law. an available railway route. The Magistrate, said Mr Maitland, based his decision on the fact that the hay had to be taken by rail past O’Connor’s farm and then brought back by road. “On that point, this is purely an appeal on a point of law,” said Mr Maitland. “The issue is whether this 2.3 miles of back tracking justifies evasion of restriction.”

Mr Maitland held that the hay legitimately brought by road from Waikari via Lewis Pass should have then been loaded on to the railway at Reef ton and railed to Westport. On behalf of respondent, Mr Fraser contended that its actions were lawful and that the rail route through Westport was not an available route. The /ailway went beyond the property which was the destination of the hay. requiring a reverse journey. If the hay were going to a point beyond Westport, the position would be different, but it was absurd to cart the goods in an opposite direction.

Mr Fraser submitted that Inangahua Junction was the station at which the hay should have been required to be offloaded from the train, but, as it was not 30 miles from Reefton, it had not been necessary to consign it at all.