MOTOR LICENSES

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 119, 22 May 1928, Page 10

MOTOR LICENSES

MAGISTRATE'S VIEWS INTERPRETATION OF ACT IMPORTANT DECISION A decision of interest to motorists •was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., today, when he convicted several defendants who were charged with having driven unlicensed motor vehicles. The point at issue was the interpretation to be given to the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 102", in regard to the expiry date of licenses ty use motor vehicles and licenses to drive such vehicles. • ■ ' At the outset, Mr. S. \V. Fitzhcrbert, counsel for 'a defendant who was charged with liaviug driven without a driver's license for the current year, said thatho understood the decision given recently at Hamilton by Mr. J. Luxford, S.H.. on a similar charge, was under appeal. Counsel thought it'might'boas well to hold over the hearing of thecharge against the defendant until the appeal was dealt .with. NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL. Mr. Page: "I think you are in error in stating that that decision is the subject of an appeal- It is a fact that Mr. Luxford dismissed some of these informations, but ho dismissed them under section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act." Under that section a, decision, was not subject to appeal. Appearing for another defendant, who was charged with having driven an unlicensed ear, Mr. W. P. Rollings quoted section 10' of the Act as it now stands: "It shall bo the duty of every person being the owner of a motor vehicle to procuz-e annually from a deputy-regis-trar 'i license tn use such motor vehicle." Mr. Boilings said that it been contended that the apparent anomaly caused by striking out the section which f&ced "the expiry date of motor licenses was overcome by section '2,0 of the Acts Interpretation Act, but he could not see how that section affected section 10 of the Act under review. Clearly the issue of licenses was not invalidated, but it was not correct that licenses expired ou olst March. Thero was nothing en licenses themselves to show that they expired 6n 31st March, and before the expiry took place the section fixing .the expiry date was pealed.Mi1. Page: "Do you suggest that your license runs ou indefinitely so long as the law stands as it is?" Counsel: "I suggest that once a license is carried over 31st March it is l<cpt in force until 31st May, 1920." "Annually" did not necessarily mean at the end of every year, but could mean in or during every year. In view of the' fact that the expiry date had been struck out the only-reasonable interpretation could bo that the license remained in force after that date. '' VICTIMS OF INEFFICIENCY. '' Counsel added that..the. arrangements made at the Concert Chamber for issuing licenses left much to bo desired. Ho had known of men who had spent two and three days before getting their licenses, "Those defendants are no law-breakers, they are merely victims of inefficiency," he concluded. He asked that the information be dismissed. . '"•■ . Senior-Sergeant Scott quoted section 20 of.the Acts Interpretation Act in support of his contention that the licenses under discussion expired on 31st March, 1928. Ho pointed out that licenses were available two months before the end of March. There was no obligation on motorists to get their licenses in advance,, but many preferred to do so. AN "ANNUAL" LICENSE. Dealing first with the- question of drivers' licenses, Mr. Page, said that section 20 of. the 1024 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. Then section 21 provided that a license should remain in force until 31st March next after the date on which it is issued then expire. It was clear, therefore, that the license contemplated by that Statute was an annual license. By tho 1927 Act the date of expiry of the annual license was altered from 31st March toolst May in each year. In vicw-of tho alteration it became necessary to repeal that portion of the 1924 Act, which provided that a license, issued under that Act should expire ou 31st March following tho date of issue. It was contended by counsel that as there was no statutory provision fixing the date on which a license issued under, the 1924 Act should expire that license became permanently valid." - "I am.not able to adopt this view," said Mr. Page. "This contention seems to me to be contrary to the plain intention of the Legislature, namely, that the license shall be an annual one, and I think it also, conflicts with the letter of the Statute. , When the license was issued there was a specific | statutory provision that' tho date of expiry should be 31st March, 1928. There was no power to grant it for [any longer period, and the period for which it was granted has expired. It seems to me that the defendant's contention conflicts with both the spirit

and the letter of the Statute. I think the point is also concluded by 'section 20 of tho Acts Interpretafion Act. I think the same argument, is .applicable in respect of a motor license. It is true that in respect of a motor license tlio form which is issued does not mention tho "date to which it is applicable. . . . Tho Act specifically says that a license is to bo applied for and issued annually. I think, therefore, that in respect of a license for a vehicle the license has been issued and paid for until 31st March, and at the- date it was issued there was no power to grant it for a longer period." INSUFFICIENT FACILITIES. Mr. Pago said that he agreed with the remarks as to the congestion at the Concert Chamber, and said it seemed to him that towards the end there wore insufficient facilities for issuing the licenses. : ■ ■ . Each ,of the following defendants was convicted and ordered to pay costs. For driving unlicensed' vehicles: Alexander M'Konzic, James F. Gavin, and L. P. Hagan. For driving without a license Morgan Duncan1 was similarly tracted.