"RAD" CITY BY-LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18520, 3 October 1923, Page 7

"RAD" CITY BY-LAW.

, £ . . ~- r - r: "Or- -)/ ■ '1 '. -. .' heavy MOTOR TRAFFIC, r , Country carriers* . PEES, INFORMATION dismissed An important decision affecting local bodies and owners of heavy traffic ; vehicles was : given by Mr. W. R, Mc* Keari, Gotxri yesfcer-* , day in a. heavy traffic, by-law case; brought" ■; by "the chief •■■ traffic'inspector, for whom "{ Mr. McKay appeared,, against | FredericK/") George Woolley (Mr. Beckerleg), carrier, of Tuakau. ■'-"', '_ Defendant was:, 'charged that, being tbfl '-" owner of a .motor' truck engaged in heavy} traffic, he ; used.¥ the truck upon j certain ) ' city streets without ■* having first'.obtained ~"'; a license as prescribed in by-law {No. 29,4 ': made by the City Council. •; ; . This ' by-law - ' defines heavy, traffic; requires the owners :-_ of vehicles engaged in such - traffic to '! pay annual license fee varying' in : the case) <i of,- mechanically-propelled - vehicles from ■ !. £10 to £18; and .makes it an offence to( ;' use any vehicle 'for heavy traffic in the' ' city-' without obtaining a: licenser |Defen-' i| dant's vehicle weighed 3 -tons 3cwt. un* i - laden, and its use'was therefore heavy ){ traffic within the meaning of the by-law, J\ For the defence, it was contended that, ;! .' I the by-law was unreasonable and' unequal vj ■. in its operation. : Mr.;. McKean said that • the payments - ' prescribed by the (by-Jaw were in the iia«r -; ture of a toll on heavy .traffic in the city but ;th - payments -must heit be ': unreasonable. ;: Defendant ' already held ;■ a license from--, the- Tuakau Town Board, in- whosei' : district he resided. It authorised him to ' : { ply for hire with his vehicle within the : board's district for :12 months,. at a fee. of £4 10s. 1 . .. '.Defendant estimated that he made three trips from Tuakau to Auckland per , • month.. The fee prescribed by the by-law in question for defendant's class of vehicle was £15. He : complained that this was • :' equivalent to :.; a payment at " the rate ' of , 8s",- 3d for each trip to Auckland. To reach: Auckland from Tuakau defendant,, had to pass over roads that were under] - the control of nine and; possibly ten- difi '~ ferent local authorities. Some had a reciprocal agreement with' the -Auckland City Council . regarding -heavy trafficlicenses. With • six of them there. was ino such agreement. If therefore, defendant were required by-, the-, by-laws -of- each . of thai six local j authorities to pay a fee for an ann , license for his truck it ■ would : probably, prevent*, him from ever ' using his : truck to transport goods from . - Auckland. • The city , by-law, said fthe; magiatirate, if it were valid, would; no doubt have artequally restraining 'effect upon any- per- . v son who" wished to use ~ a vehicle uport .; one' occasion"onlyi for heavy traffic on the ■-. :•. city streets. --The by-law did! not make provision for vehicles not'regularly ', en-< .. gaged ,in heavy : traffic in the city, except •. in cases . where the weight-of the. vehicle t " and its load exceeded. 10 tons." It seemed ' ; unreasonable to;exact from the owner of a . vehicle that was used once or occasionally ,: . the fame fee as would give a right of ; a daily use for 12 months. For a. vehicle duly "'. licensed in its' • «wn,. . district,.™ some provision v •-, should ■•' < be •;; made either by enabling the ownej.* to . obtain - a "license at t a" reduced fee;:- or* by v ' payment of a:';daily fee. Y : - s ' ; v/' "*''■:"■'■'■ "Although-the defendant complainsthat J in' his ; case the fee ? amounts to" 8s 3d {'.',- ; per day and is excessive," continued . the •'*; ■-■ magistrate,'"! . should.; not hold that the . ' by-law wa3 bad "merely by reason of the ;. - fact that in .its 'application to Kim the '~ .■ cost per trip seemed high. ! The by-law,* •however, appears to me to be. bad, .-be-" ■~, cause it requires the; full ..license fee from;' ,_-.,-■ every person .'^vhov; uses the city streets' ;■ •.. for heavy • traffic, even though the. use-be -f'- * on a • single occasion. ; The City , Council might not insist upon the taking ; out of • a license by '■ an. owner who required .to.'' • use the streets'on a single occasion. : There ■~. was, however, no dispensing power and -,- ■' a by-law was to.be- tested by its terms and not by. its.administration. -" ■' , , "The information was dismissed, ~ with i costs' to defendant.? ■•■ Security for r.appJal !: was fixed, at £10,1 C. ■: •;.. ! '. \ An-information against the driver of the truck was alsb. dismissed. ; ■;, ",■/. .-,, ,'■•'•' .:,',■■;'- ■■;■'"■■'■-■■■' : ' :vr >V:::^y^.r-V;;^v^:/-;-: