GOODS SERVICES

Evening Star, Issue 21992, 30 March 1935, Page 14

GOODS SERVICES

ARE LICENSES NECESSARY? DECISION DESERVED IK TEST CASE An interesting legal case for transport firms and authorities was heard in the Police Court to-day, when Robins and Co. pleaded not guilty to a charge that from February 1 to February 23 they carried on a goods service between Cromwell and Dunedin otherwise than pursuant to the authority and in conformity with the terms of a goods service license. Mr H. W. Bundle. S.M., presided, and defendants were represented by Mr G. T. Baylee. Inspector M. A/Fairhurst said that the defendants held an automatic license when the Act came into force, but an application on September 5 last for a renewal for one year was refused by the No. 9 Licensing Authority. An appeal was duly made, and on November 9 last the decision of the authority was upheld. He gave evidence of the breach, the facts of which were admitted by the defence. When spoken to, two defendant partners had both stated that they intended to test the validity of the Act and regulations. The defence was purely a legal one, said Mr Baylee, who submitted that, inasmuch as the Governor-Geperal, by the Order-in-Council, had wrongfully modified Section 43 of the Act, the Order-in-Council was ultra vires, and it was not necessary to have a license to run a goods service. His AVorship remarked that it would be unfair to ask a traffic inspector to argue on the subject of the law. Inspector Fail-burst said that he had been instructed to deal only with the facts of the case. Decision was reserved.