FIRE ENGINES

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 131, 30 November 1933, Page 14

FIRE ENGINES

HEAVY TRAFFIC FEES

LIABLE OR NOT LIABLE?

SUPREME COURT ACTION

Whether or not fire, engines owned and opcratod by the Wellington Fire Board come -within the definition of heavy motor vehicles in the heavy motor vehicles regulations, 1032, and whether tho Fire Board is liable to the Wellington City Corporation for heavy traffic licence fees in respect of them j were questions involved in an action heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) m the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon and today. After some interesting legal argument his Honour reserved decision. For tho period from June 1, 1932, to May 31, 1933, the City Council claimed in respect of seven fire engines heavy traffic licence fees of £181 4s, and for the quarter June 1, 1933, to August 31, 1933, the sum of £99 10s 6d in respect of ten fine engines, making a total of £280 14s. 6d. It was claimed that payment of the money had been requested, but tho Fire Board had failed to pay. The statement of defence denied that the Fire Board was liable to obtain heavy traffic licences from the City Council and pay heavy traffic licence fees for the vehicles. The City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea), with him Mr. J. Loekie, appeared for the City Council, and Mr. G. G. G. Watson, -with him Mr. H. J. V. James for the Fire Board. Mr. O'Shea said that tho question came down to whether the machines wore designed solely or principally for the carriage of passengers. , His contention was.that they wore designed as fire engines and principally for the carriage of fire apparatus or fii;e plant. It was submitted that the vehicles mentioned in tho statement of claim were heavy motor vehicles within the meaning of the heavy motor vehicle regula-; tions,. 1932, and accordingly were liable for the payment of heavy traffic foes. The question not only affected Wellington. It had been debated in Auckland and Dunedin, and he believed in Christchurch also. Mr. Watson: No fire board in New Zealand had paid heavy traffic fees. . His' Honour": This is not merely academic. "Mr. O'Shea: Oh, no, sir. DESIGN OF MACHINES. Evidence was called by Mr. 0 'Shea in regard to the design' of the machines and .their primary function. punean F. Bauehop, general manager for New Zealand of Leyland Motors, Ltd., referring to a vehicle supplied by his company, said that undoubtedly its primary function was the conveyance of a motor pump. Other vehicles operated by the Fire Board were in the same category. As far. as the bodywork was concerned, the one common feature of fire engines was the provision for the carriago of tho crew. ■ Two witnesses were called on behalf of tho defendant. Charles Alexander Woolley, superintendent of the Wellington Fire Brigade, said that seven of the machines shown in tho schedule he produced were classified as fire pumps, and each carried six or eight firemen. They were designed for the carriage.'of both equipment and men, and .were now fitted with pneumatic tires. Boy M. Girling-Butelier, Government inspector of fire brigades,' said that in New Zealand the great majority of fire engines did not carry fire'pumps. Until three or four years ago the general design of the bodywork of fire engines in New ZeaJand was similar, irrespective of whether they carried pumps or not. The factor that was common to all was the provision of accommodation for the men. ■ ■' ■ IMPORTANCE TO FIRE BOARDS. Mr. Watson said that the questions involved in the action were of considerable importance and interest to fireboards throughout the Dominion, The issue was whether as a wholo or in part the vehicles mentioned in tho statement of claim wore designed for the carriage of not more than nine passengers. His submission was that the , vehicles were private "motor-cars," within the meaning of the term in tho Motor Vehicles Act, primarily or principally designed for the carriage of passengers. Under tho Act motor-car was defined as a motor:vehicle other than a motor-cycle designed solely or principally for the carriage of persons not exceeding nine in number, and a private motor-car was described as a motor-car other than a public motor-car. The word "private" in tho definition had not the ordinary meaning, it was submitted. -Private motor-ear under the Act included every form of motor-car other than those licensed to ply for hire. His submission was that the vehicles mentioned iv the statement of claim were designed primarily for the carriage of members of theifire brigade. The primary object of a fire engine was to transport members of tho brigade, together with tools aiid plant, to tho scene of a fire. FARCICAL POSITION. The position would be farcical, con j tinued Mr; Watson, if the machines wore subject to the heavy traffic regulations. On account of the classification of roads and the prohibition of vehicles of a certain weight, there would be hundreds of miles of roads iv New Zealand over which fire, engines could not travel. Until the amendment of October of this year was gazetted fire engines would have been subject to all the speed limits in the heavy traffic regulations, with the result that different units in a brigade would have had to travel at different speeds to a fire, and some of them, the life-saying plant, for instance, would have arrived long after the others, travelling at 12 miles an hour. ' Fire engines were, particularly mentioned in the general motor regulations and given special exemptions, but there was no mention of them in the heavy traffic regulations. His Honour said that what astonished him was that there should be room for dispute under the heavy traffic regulations. Mr. Watson , submitted , that the vehicles were not. designed primarily for the carriago of goods. A great part of the gear carried was an integral part of the vehicle, "NERO FIDDLES " Tja his reply Mr. O'Shea contended that if permission was necessary before fire engines could travel over certain roads it could bo given by the local authority. Mr. Watson: The fire could go on burning while they went to get permission. His Honour: The local authority being Nero. ' (Laughter.) Mr. O'Shea submitted that no one would design vehicles for the carriage of passengers in such a way as fire engines were designed. Another point made by Mr. Watson was that even if the City Council were successful in establishing the principle j it advocated no fee could be recoverable for 1932, because the fee was one payable upon the issue of a licence for a quarterly period, and no licences had been issued. The Chief Justice expressed tho view that the main question in the case should never have arisen. When it first raised its head many months ago the difficulty should have been remedied at once. He could quite understand the force of the argument that the fi.ro boards ought not-to have to pay tbo | licence fee, and he sympathised with it. If, however, the language of the regulations forced him to rule the other way, he would have to do so.