BYLAW INVALID

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 7, 8 July 1922, Page 8

BYLAW INVALID

IMPORTANT MOTOR-LORRY CASE.

An important judgment affecting motor-lorry traffic to and from Wellington city via Paekakariki Hill was delivered by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., at Otaki on Thursday. His Worship said : "The defendants (W. Doyle and W. J. Close) are charged with breaches of a bylaw of the Hutt County made on 18th January, 1922. It is admitted that defendants drove over the Paekakariki'hill without obtaining a permit, as requested by the bylaw, and that the lorries with their loads weighed upwards of three tons, but it is contended that the bylaw in question is invalid, because (1) it is ultra vires and (2) it is unreasonable. ... The bylaw does not follow the definition set out in section 139 of the Public Works Act, but seeks to prohibit the passage, without permission, over certain portions of the roads within the county of 'any goods cart, which, with its load, shall weigh upwards of three tons.'. It. will be noticed that no reference is made to the number, of pairs of wheels of such goods cart. . The bylaw is, therefore, plainly ultra vires if a goods cart had three pairs of wheels, and that being so, it must, in my opinion, be held to be bad altogether. Apart from this point, it is., inconsistent in that no provision is made for a license fee where the load exceeds three tons. A goods cart, therefore, which weighed over five tons, if granted permission to use the road, could not be charged a fee. This is unreasonable. The County Council has no statutory power to refuse permission if they provide that an understanding shall bo given to make good any 'special damage,' and such an understanding is given. .'. . In my opinion, therefore, the bylaw is, apart' from any question of unreasonableness, ultra vires of the council, and invalid. I think also, without discussing the question in detail, that the bylaw is unreasonable when teste* by the principles laid down by Denniston and Edwards, J J., in M'Carthy v. Madden, 33 N.Z.L.R., 1261, at pp. 1268-1270, as ap undue interference with a main arterial highway. The informations must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs to the defendants, £3 3s, on each information," ' ■: