Whippet Racing

Hutt News, Volume 10, Issue 6, 8 July 1936, Page 4

Whippet Racing

PERMIT UNDER BY-LAW.

I Judgment was given 'by Mr. H. P. i'Lawry, S.M., in the Lower Hutt Court 'last'week in the case in which the •Lower Hutt Borough Council charged Richard Coxon with conducting a dog "racing meeting within the borough without previously obtaining a permit to do so contrary to the Lower Hutt Bylaw No. 7 amendment, 1935. The bylaw read: "No person, club, or other organisation shall conduct dog races within the iborough without having previously obtained a permit from the Council Every person, club, or organisation desirable of holding such a race or race meeting shall apply to the council for a license to do so. 'Such application shall be made in writing to the Town Clerk. The council may' refuse any such applicant a licence without being compelled j to assign any reason for so doing"

In the course of a written decision Mr Lawry stated that evidence was given by the Town Clerk and the police that such a bylaw was desirable in order to control dog racc meetings. In his opinion the bylaw was well within the authority'of section 3(s4,'sub-sections [ 1 to 4, of the Municipal Corporations j Act. The question was raised that the bylaw was invalid .by reason of it being uncertain. To give an authority an uncontrolled liberty to grant or refuse permits without reason would be beyond authority, and that part of the bylaw was, in his opinion, invalid. Did that invalidate the whole ibylaw or was it severable. Under section 17 of the Bylaws Act, 19.10, if any bylaw contained any provisions which were invalid because the were ultra vires of the local authority, or repugnant to the laws of New Zealand, or unreasonable, or for any cause whatever, the bylaw shall be invalid to the extent of these provisions and any others which co',«?d not ibe "severed therefrom. Afte: 1 quoting legal authorities, Mr Lawry stated that in his opinion the clause giving power to refuse a permit without assigning a reason was severable, and accordingly that defence failed.

There was, stated Mr. Lawry, another objection which had not been raised by I either counsel. That was the question whether or not the by-law was invalid by reason of it being repugnant to Statute Law. tinder the Municipal Corporations Act, 1033, sections 31.1 to 31S, provision was made for the licensing of sports grounds, and these sections went further perhaps than would be authorised by .sub-section 38 of section 304. Any matters that could be reasonably considered' under an application for a permit under the bylaw were provided for under section 318. That section specifically provided for an applicant a right of appeal in the event of an unsatisfatory decision. Under the by-law no such right of appeal was provided, and a's a result an applicant for a permit under the bylaw was deprived of the right of appeal which the statute contemplated he should have. The bylaw was repugnant to the statute in that respect, and therefore bad. '''

did not necessarily mean that bylaws could- not be made in respect of such permits as mentioned above. There was power to provide for such matters, although the general subject was dealt with 'by statute, and in -making such bylaws care had to be taken to see that any such provisions were not repugnant to the statute law of .the land. A bylaw was repugnant if it expressly or by necessary implication proposed to alter the- general law of the land or if it added, something inconsistent with a statute creating the same offence. If a bylaw in terms conflicted with the Act under which it was made the bylaw should, if it could,'be reconciled under tho Act, but if it could not, it must give way to the Act,

No costs were allowed' either party. ' Mr. E. P. Bunny, for the borough council, was granted le.ive to :nppeal.