ANNUAL LICENSES

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 198, 23 May 1928, Page 5

ANNUAL LICENSES

“ISSUED UNTIL MARCH 31”

MOTORISTS CONVICTED

MAGISTRATE DECIDES INTERESTING POINT

“The Motor Vehicles Act specifically says that a license is to be applied for and issued annually. I think, therefore, that in respect to a license for a vehicle, the license has been issued and paid for until March 31, and at the date it was issued there was no power to grant it for a longer period.”

The above remarks were made yesterday by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in connection with- the action taken by the police in the Magistrate’s Court against several motorists, who were charged with driving unlicensed motor vehicles. Mr. W. S. Fitzherbert, who appeared for a motorist who was charged with driving a car without a driver’s license, intimated that he understood that the decision recently given in respect to a similar charge by Mr. J. Luxford, S.M., at Hamilton, was under appeal, and he asked that in view of that fact the charge against his client might be held over.

The Magistrate remarked that he thought counsel was in error, for Mr. Luxford certainly dismissed some informations, but did so under section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act. Under that section, he added, a decision was not subject to appeal. Another defendant, who was charged with driving an unlicensed ear, vas lepresented by Mr. W. P. Rollings, who commenced by reading section PI of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1927, which says: “It shall be the duty of every person being the owner of a motor vehicle to procure annually from a de-puty-registrar a license to use such motor vehicle.” Counsel contended chat the apparent anomaly caused by the deletion of the section fixing the expiry date of motor licenses was overcome by section 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act. However, he could not see how that section affected section 10 of the Act which was being dealt with. He contended that it was not correct that the licenses expired on March 31, and that the section fixing the date of expiry was repealed before such expiry took place. In answer to Mr. Page, counsel said that he thought that once a license was carried over March 31, it was kept in force until May 31, 1929. Mr. Rollings contended that “annually” could mean “in or during every year,” and did not necessarily mean 'nt the end of every year. Senior-Sergeant Scott, who prosecuted, contended that the licenses held good until March 31, and no longer, and quoted section 20 of the Acts Interpretation Aet.

The Magistrate stated that he would first of all deal with the question of drivers’ licenses. Section 20 of the 1924 Act provided that it was unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle unless he was the holder of a motor driver's license. Section 21 laid down that a license should remain in force until March 31 next after the date on which it was issued, after which it would expire. In Mr. Page’s opinion there was no doubt that the license contemplated by that statute was an annual one. Then, by the 1927 Act, the date of expiry was altered from March 31 to May 31 in each year. Owing to this fact, that portion of the 1924 Act which provided that a license issued under that Act should expire on March 31 following the date of issue, had to be repealed. Counsel had submitted that, since there was no statutory provision fixing the date bn which a license issued under the 1924 Act should expire, then such a license became permanently valid.

Mr. Page intimated that he was not able to adopt that view, as the contention seemed to be contrary to the intention of the Legislature—that was, that the license should be an annual one. He also thought that it was in conflict with the letter - of the statute. A license, he added, was issued with a specific statutory provision that the date of expiry should be March 31, 1928, and there was no power to grant it for any longer period, and that period had expired.

“I think,” said Mr. Page, “that defendant’s contention conflicts with both the spirit and the letter of the statute. I also think that the point is concluded by section 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act.”

In conclusion, the Magistrate admitted that it was true that the form iu which a motor license was issued did not mention the date to which it was applicable. As a result of the decision, Alexander McKenzie, James F. Gavin (who conducted his own case), and L. P. Hogan were each convicted and ordered to pay costs. A similar penalty was imposed on Morgan Dunean, who was charged with driving without a license.