OVERLOADED MOTOR LORRY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 23 July 1928, Page 6

OVERLOADED MOTOR LORRY.

AN OPUNAtKE CASE At the Opunake Court on Friday, the Magistrate,' Air R. W. Tate, clearly showed ha regarded the offences of operating an: overloaded- lorry on’ closed bynßoods.rl'as very serious and that he would not hesitate to inflict a heavy penalty" in -future.. . Local authorities closed, the roads during the I winter months ..for a. very good reason, and if the by-law were not observed it, would be iinpiiSiSiilble for tlgyn to keep -the roads in decent order. In the particular ease in which P. J. Northcott was charged with operating a motor, lorry which, together with its load, exceeded. I . 1 ,. lons to each pair of wheels, on the Keri Road, the Magistrate entered a. conviction, but deferred the penalty until the October sitting, making if dear that the penalty would depend on whether or not defendant" observed the by-law in the meantime, the particular by-law being in force from May 1. to September ]. Northcott, who did not appear, but was 'represented by Mr R, E. Baeyertz, pleaded not guilty. He also pleaded not. quilty to charges- of failing ,to produce a motor driver’s license when required to do so, failing to produce his heavy traffic license, and operating a. motor lorry carrying .a. load whose width exceeded Bft 4in. He pleaded guilty to further charges of operating a motor lorry not having an indication disc, and being the owner ef :> 'motor lorry on which was not painted the unladen weight. Evidence was given by the traffic inspector, Mir F. M. Oorldll, who affirmed that the charges arose out of an incident on June 18, .when he met defendant driving his lorry on the Keri Road. He measured the load and found that it was 9ft 19in wide, where ast the maximum allowed wa® Sft. When asked to produce his driver’s license, he could not do so. Neither could he produce his .heavy traffic license, saying that both were at home.

Wituefiisi also measured the load and found that it measured 224 ft which, according; to the county schedule of 80ft to the ton, amounted to 2.8 tons. The weight of the lorry was X ton lOcwt, so that the total load was 4 tons 6ewt, the maximum for that closs of lorry being three tons. He asked lor a heavy penalty, stating that defendant was? a nuisance on the roads, disregarding the regulations. Cross-examined, lie said defendant had produced his license the next day and hud since attached his identification disc. Mr Baeyertz contended that there was no necessity for a motor driver to produce his driver’s license immediately on demand. He had produced it as soon as possible the next day. Tn giving judgment, the Magistrate saul that drivers must understand that, they hiad to have their drivers*’ licenses and' their heavy traffic licenses with them so that they could he produced when required. The fact that they had left' those licenses at home might ho taken into consideration in inflicting punishment. He then convicted defendant on the charge of operating a motor lorry with an overload on the Kiri Ttoad, deferring sentence till the October sitting. Defendant was siuso convicted on ail I the other charges, fined 40s land costs 10s on the charge of carrying a load whose width exceeded Bft, and was ordered to pay costs 10s on each of three charges,' and discharged on the charge of driving a motor lorry o ; n which the unladen weight mas not shown.