Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LEGAL PARADOX

Magistrates’ Conflicting Decisions Opposed TRANSPORT REGULATIONS Challenging the validity of the Transport Goods Order, 1933-34, legal argument was heard ■in Wellington yesterday before the Court of Appeal, which will decide whether or not the licensing rule for goods transport services need be observed. The hearing will' be continued to-day. Tfie appeal' is of a dual nature and has a curious aspect in that in one instance the appellant is a carrier who was convicted for not having a license, and. in the other instance it is the Inspector of transport who is appealing because the magistrate’s decision in another part of New Zealand went against him and in favour of the carrier concerned in that case. The two appeals have been removed from the Supreme Court to'the Court of Appeal to be heard consecutively.

The carrier who is appealing against the Magistrate’s Court conviction for not being licensed under the Transport Licensing Act, 1931,'.is A. F. Wilson, of Wanganui, aud the respondent is E. H. Barrett, the traffic Inspector who brought the information. The inspector who conversely is acting as appellant in the second case is M. O. Fairhurst, who in the Dunedin Magistrate’s Court had been the informant In the charge heard unsuccessfully against Robins aud Co., carriers. For tlie carrier appellant it was stated that the effect of the regulations being declared ultra vires would mean that the whole of the licenses would cease to apply. It would not ho an offence to carry on a service without a license as those existing would be valueless. A new Order-ln-Council would be ’necessary. On the Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Blair. Mr. Justice Smith and Mr. Justice Kennedy. Mr. p. L. Dickson (Wanganui) appears for Wilson and the Crown solicitor (Mr. A. E. Curry), with him the Crown solicitor at Wanganui (Mr. N. R, Bain), for Barrett. Messrs. .Curry and Bain appear also for Falrhurst and Mr. G. T. Baylee (Dunedin) represents Robins and Co.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19350626.2.57

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 230, 26 June 1935, Page 8

Word Count
336

LEGAL PARADOX Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 230, 26 June 1935, Page 8

LEGAL PARADOX Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 230, 26 June 1935, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert