MOTOR-VAN LICENCES

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 18, 21 July 1932, Page 6

MOTOR-VAN LICENCES

AUCKLAND FEES

CARRIER'S APPEAL FAILS

Judgments dismissing the appeal of Frank Savory, carrier, of Auckland, froiii,a decision of Mr. Justice Eood refusing to quash or amend the Auckland City Council's bylaw fixing the licenco fee for motor-vans at £2 per annum, on-the ground that the fee was unreasonable, were delivered in the Court of Appeal yesterday. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), in his judgment, said that in i-onneotion with tho licensing of a vehicle such as a motor-van there was not only the matter of registration of the licence and collection of the. fee, but there was also the necessity . . . of periodical inspections and of more or less work in the nature of what might be called "policing work", throughout ■the whole year in respect of which tho licence fee waa paid. The matter the Court had to determine should, ho thought, be determined in aooordanco •with the principles; that an honest judgment was exercised by the council and that the fee was limited to meet •the expenses incurred in connection with registration of the licences, collection of the fees, inspection from time to time of the licensed vehicles, and •*policing work." His Honour referred to the deficit of £4370 in the annual cost of all traffic control and tho opinion of the chief traffic officer that vans, generally speaking, required more supervision and attention than most other types of vehicles. He 1 bought that if there were no agreeBient between the local authorities and each local authority issued licences to •the vans in its own district, the licence fee, having tegard to the inspection ajid Other services contemplated, would tSwbably not be less than £2, and he failed to see why, because for their >Wft convenience an agreement was made that one of the local authorities should collect all tho fees, tho owner of the van could reasonably require that a lower fee should be charged. HJa Honour added that he certainly thought, however, that a licence fee e'f ;&2 was the high-water mark under etntfUfctoll* -.tn»t had so far existed. . . There was no reason to doubt that the iiouneii had exercised an honest judgxnect in the maiter, and, in his opinion, therei was nothing to show that it was out of all proportion to the burdons imposed upon the ratepayers which the Court was entitled to consider. He Vlesired to guard himself against any suggestion that, he was considering the •validity 6t the traffic bylaw except as lo .the reasonableness of one particular licence fee He said that because it had occurred to him during too atgujptcnt that a careful reconsideration and perhaps amendment or reconstruction of; the bylaw generally might clarify gaiters and obviate furthor possible Attack..; .;■■. ■-'■.'.-..■.■' . . '' Mr» justice Adams and Mr. Justice Ostler concurred in the judgment of the: Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Smith delivered a separate judgment Rgreeing that the appeal should be disjniasea.