MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CANCELLATION OF LICENCES
In ,the course of his observations to the Grand Jury in the Supromo Court yesterday on the question whether tho power conferred by sub-section 1 of section 22 of tho Motor Vehicles Act should not be.extended, tho Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) referred to the ease- oC a person who had been acquitted on a chaigo of negligent driving causing death, the jury after visiting tho spot where the casualty happened finding that it was a dangerous locality. On his own admission the accused within a period of about three hours immediately preceding tho casualty had taken no fewer than nine alcoholic drinkß. So far as concerned the jury's verdict his Honour stated that he did not say they were not perfectly justified, in acquitting tho ac'cus,ed. In the report of his observations in yesterday's "Post" his Honour whs then made to say: "The Court in such a .case, however, has power and the question is whether fhe power conferred by sub-section 1 of section 22 of the Act should not be extended. .. ." The first part of this sentence should have been to the effect that the Court in: such a case was powerless.' ...''.■" /. '■
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19340724.2.113
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 20, 24 July 1934, Page 11
Word Count
200MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 20, 24 July 1934, Page 11
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in