TRANSPORT OPERATORS MUST OBEY THE LAW

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 80, 5 April 1939, Page 2

TRANSPORT OPERATORS MUST OBEY THE LAW

Consignment Notes for Carriage of Sheep INTERESTING PROSECUTION AT FEILDING "I believe that this is the first prosecution in New Zealand under the Stock Amendment Act of 1938,” said highways traffic inspector, Mr. D. M. Ford, at the Feilding Magistrate’s Court yesterday when prosecuting in an information against Currie Bros., Ltd., transport operators, Feilding, for failure to be in possession of a consignment note for the conveyance of sheep. The prosecution was defended by Mr. D. H. Mclnness, who tended a formal plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant company. Inspector Ford stated that the Stock Amendment Act of 1938 required that all transport operators engaged in the conveyance of sheep must be in possession of a consignment note containing all details as to the transaction. He was obliged to emphasise that all lorryowners engaged in the conveyance of sheep must face up to their obligations under the law, which had been introduced to check up on sheep-stealing. During March he had approached the driver of one of the defendant company’s lorries requesting the production of his consignment note in connection with the sheep he had on the lorry. The driver said: “Well, you’ve got me there. I have not got one.” Mr. Ford went on to say that in January last all traffic inspectors received instructions to check ujj on all vehicles engaged in the transport of sheep. Considerable trouble, he said, had been experienced with transport operators failing to secure the requisite consignment notices. In view of the large number of sheep allegedly stolen, it was absolutely imperative that proper authenticated consignment notices bo made out before any sheep were transported by motorlorry. The Magistrate (Mr. R. M. Watson, S.M.): In other words, Currie Bros., who are engaged in a fairly large way in this business, must carry out their obligations? Inspector Ford: That is so. Counsel for defendant company suggested to the Court that it was impossib‘•> to carry out tho intention of the Act. The Magistrate: Dear me—impossible is a very strong word. Counsel: Yes, in some cases it is impossible. Take the case of a farmer on a big place ringing up a lorry-driver and asking him to collect sheep at a point ou his property some distance away from his homestead. He would issue the instruction for the sheep to be picked up, but there would be no ono there to give the consignment note, as it was not always possible for the farmer to b.e on the spot when the sheep were picked up. The Magistrate: Mr. Mclnness, you are not seriously suggesting that argument?

Counsel reiterated that there were -circumstances in which it would be impossible for the law to be complied with.

The Magistrate differed and remarked that ho understood that the inspector was not asking for a penalty in this case, which had bocn brought merely as a warning to all transport operators that they must carry out their obligations. Mr. Ford said that the prosecution was brought as a warning, as the Transport Board insisted that the law must be obeyed. Counsel then withdrew the plea of not guilty and substituted a plea of guilty.

The Magistrate said that he was not concerned with the reasons for the placing on the Statute Book of the particular law, but ho was concerned with the enforcement of the obligation on transport operators. He was satisfied that there was no question of the law being impossible to carry out. It could be carried out and done quite easily, and it must be understood by all carriers engaged in the transporting of sheep that they would have to obey the law, otherwise they would find themselves in serious trouble. Mr. Mclnness said he was not attacking the intention of the Act, but suggested that, in the drafting of it, it had missed tho mark.

In entering a conviction and ordering the defendant company to pay costs 10s only, the Magistrate said that Currie Bros., Ltd., who wero in a fairly big way, must understand that they had been troated with very great lenience on the charge and ho hoped that in future they would carry out their obligations. On a further charge of operating a motor-lorry without a vehicle authority, the defendant company pleaded guilty. Counsel said that there was no question that the authority for tho vehicle had been issued, but the driver, when approached by the traffic inspector, had been unable to produce it. It was only a piece of paper and might have blown away. The Magistrate: There’s tho law; you must have the authority on the vehicle, and if you don’t, well, you are in trouble. Traffic must be regulated and controlled. Inspector Ford said that when he approached tho driver to produce the vehicle authority he was unable to do so. It was imperative that such authorities be carried by all vehicles in order that a proper chock could be maintained of all lorries on the road. It was possible for a firm operating six or more lorries to take out only four authorities, hence the obligation on all owners to see that the vehicle authority was carried on the ldrry. Tho Transport Department supplied holders for the vehicle authority and these could be obtained on application. Counsel said his clients had been trying for months to secure these holders without success.

Mr. Ford replied that there were any quantity available. Addressing the representative of the company, the Magistrate said that he should see that his lorries were in

proper condition before going on the road. Traffic must be regulated and there were more lorries on tho road than inspectors, so it was necessary that owners complied with the law. The defendant company would be fined 10s and 10s costs.