GOODS SERVICES

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 148, 25 June 1935, Page 10

GOODS SERVICES

A TRANSPORT ORDER CHALLENGED

Whether or not the Transport (Goods) Order, 1933-34, is ultra vires is a question being argued before the 'Full Court today. The question, which arose from Magisterial decisions at Wanganui and at Dunedin, came first before the Supreme Court as a result of appeals from the Magistrates' decisions, and was brought before the Full Court for argument. In both cases carriers were charged with carrying on goods services without licences granted under, the Transport Licensing Act, 1931, contrary to section 20 of the Transport (Goods) Order, 1933-34. In the Wanganui case the carrier was convicted, and it was against this conviction that the appeal was made to the Supreme Court. In the Dunedin case the charge against the carrier was dismissed/ and in this instance the appeal was made by the informant. Both cases are being heard together by the Full Court. On the Bench are the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Herdman. Mr. Justice Blair, Mr. Justice Smith,' and Mr. Justice Kennedy. In the first case Mr. ; P. L. Dickson (Wanganui) appears for the appellant, A. F. Wilson, and the Crown Solicitor (Mr. A. E; Currie), with him the Crown Solicitor at Wanganui (Mr. N. R. Bain) for the respondent, Ernest Hunter Barrett, traffic officer. In the second case Mr. Currie and Mr. Bairi appeal fqr the appellant, Maurice Ordish Fairhurst, informant, and Mr. G. T. Baylee (Dunedin), for the respondents, SamueL Robins and others, carriers, of Dunedin. Mr. Dickson, in the course of his opening, agreed xwith the Chief Justice that the Act itself made the fullest provision for the issue and general dealing with passenger licences, but said.it did not itself make any provision in detail for the issue of goods licences. It provided, however, that the Governor-General in Council might make regulations regarding the issue of goods licences, and for that purpose might apply certain sections of the Act, and should apply section 43. Counsel's contention was that section 43 had not been complied with in the proper way, and for that reason the regulation was ultra vires.

Legal' argument is proceeding,