TRANSPORT CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 14 June 1939, Page 8

TRANSPORT CASE

AN IMPORTANT DECISION CARTING GOODS FOR "REWARD” , I In April last at Takaka the Transport i Department (Mr R. Dixon) proceeded J against C. H. Andrews (Mr C. W. I Thorp) on a charge of running an unlicensed goods service at Puramahoi in a controlled area; namely, along the Hidden Treasure road, otherwise than pursuant to the authority of a goods service license. The defendant was carting road metal in a motor truck in the county of Takaka in terms of a contract with the Takaka County Council. At the conclusion of the hearing the Magistrate (Mr T. E. Maunsell) said the case turned on the meaning of "hire and reward” and he would reserve his decision. This was given at Takaka yesterday afternoon against defendant who was convicted and fined £2 and ordered to pay 10s court costs and £2 2s solicitors fee. In a written judgment the Magistrate said: “Defendant is charged with carrying on a goods service in a controlled area; namelj', along the Hidden Treasure Road, otherwise than pursuant to the authority of a goods service license issued under the Transport (Goods) Order. 1936. contrary to Clause I of Part II of the Second Schedule to the said Transport (Goods) Order. 1936. “ ‘Goods service’ is defined by the Act as ‘any service by motor vehicle for the carriage or haulage of goods for hire or reward unless the service is such that it can be carried on entirely within the boundaries of a sirtgle borough or town district.’ “The defendant was carting road metal in a motor truck in the County of Takaka in terms of a contract with the Takaka County Council. The contract provides that all prepared work or materials brought on or near the works for the purpose of being used thereon shall be deemed to be the property of the Council. When interviewed by the Inspector, the gravel had not become the property of the County and accordingly it was the defendant's own property.

“Mr Thorp contends that a man can cart his own goods without a license and the defendant was not carting for hire or reward. Obviously, there was no question of hire and so the matter depends upon the meaning of the word ‘reward.’ At the hearing I inclined to the view that the case was outside the provisions of the Act, but after considering the South Australian decision cited by Mr Dixon. ‘ln regard to the Corporation of the City of Adelaide, 1925, S.A.L.R. 184,’ although not in a sense bound by it, I think I should follow it. In fact, it would be presumptuous on my part not to do so. Reward' was defined as ‘referring to and including any valuable consideration which embraces any payment for other services on or some other account.’ The service defendant undertook was to supply and deliver the metal. He had to obtain and then cart it. The reward he sought to obtain was the contract price. He could not obtain that reward unless he carted the metal in his motor vehicle and accordingly he used the motor vehicle for the purpose of earning the reward. He must therefore be convicted and fined £2 and ordered to pay court costs of 10s and solicitor’s fee of £2 25.”