A BAD BYLAW

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 79, 30 September 1924, Page 8

A BAD BYLAW

HEAVY TR.AFFIC_FEE EXCESSIVE. test case in which J. J. GeangVand Uiaiged with using a goods cart in heavy traffic without having obtained I teouTTV 0 the P«™ion7of the xxutitr bounty bylaws. "I hold that the'bylaw under which he charge, is laid is bad, and the information is dismissed," said his WorM?°i end Tnt7fr' Who 'T ere '"Presented by Air. A. J. Mazengarb, contended, when the case came before the Upper Hut" fe U[L hat th/T b>; laW ™s JnXfiniti , its terms, as the form of yearly license prescribed did not except the month! to w <-Th, heavy tr^c ™ A JiJbited. "I do.not think the bylaw ! s bad on that account," said his Worship me Jicense must be accepted by the icen.ee subject to the provisions of other bjlaws prolHbiting traffic on certain loads during certain months." The dee Toff# el| e? nten, ded «>nt the license of ,„„ ' , "g in respect ot any goods cart, irrespective of its sue or weight, was unreasonable and excessive ''Where one such general fee is prescribed, its reasonableness, I think should be tested by its application to he lightest form -of heavy traffic as defined by the _ bylaw, in other words by its application .to., say, a farmer's tuo-whecled dray weighing with its load ™vt; ,said "'a Magistrate. Most of the county councils prescribe their heavy traffic license fees on a sliding scale commencing at a comparatively low figure tor smaller vehicles, and going up to a large figure for Very heavy lorries, and in doing this, I think they have complied with the spirit of section 139, and followed the principle upon' which heavy traffic licenses are imposed, namely, 'to recompense the ratepayers to some extent tor the cost of repairing roads cut up by heavy traffic. . . I am of opinion that the fee prescribed is excessive when applied to the smaller kind of heavy traffic, and that it is also unreasonable in that no attenipt'has been made to differentiate between the.heavier, and the li"hter classes of heavy traffic." Costs £3 3s, were allowed. A FINE IMPOSED. In another case in which the Hutt County proceeded against Charles H. Geange for causing a goods cart exceeding 3 tons to be driven over the Rimutaka Hill during the' prohibited month of July, •Mr. C. A. L. 'i'readwell, who appeared for defendant, claimed that the bylaw was invalid, as being unreasonable on various grounds. "I. have not sufficient evidence to show that the council has exceedod its powers unreasonably," said the Magistrate, "and the onus is strongly upon the objector to show that. In the absence of such evidence, the. Court must assume that the local body is the best judge of what is a reasonable prohibition of traffic upon its roads. 1 therefore see no reason for declaring the bylaw invalid, and the defendant must 'be convicted." ' A fine of £3, with 7s costs, was imposed. Solicitor's fee £2 2s'was allowed. Mr. T. C. A. Hislop represented the Hutt County Council.