MOTOR-TRACTOR CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19255, 18 February 1926, Page 12

MOTOR-TRACTOR CASE.

QUESTION OF DEFINITION. MOUNT EDEN BY-LAW ACTION. APPEAL BY THE COUNCILThe question whether a motor-tractor is a vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act was argued in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice: Stringer, in an appeal from a judgment of Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in a by-law case, which arose at Mount Eden. In the Magistrate's Court, Walter Archer, road contractor, was charged with having used a motor-tractor on Shackleton Road, Mount Eden, without having it, registered under the Motor \ ehicles Act, 1924, and without having it licensed. At the hearing it was shown that the tractor was. employed by defendant in road-scoop-ing work, and that on the occasion \vV : gave rise to the prosecution it was taken along the rojid to a repair shop for about 90 chains. The magistrate upheld the defence that the tractor was not a motorvehicle within the meaning of the Act, and dismissed the case. From this decision the Borough Council (Mr. Rogerson) now appealed. Mr. Hall Skelton appeared for Archer. Mr. Rogerson submitted that a motor vehicle was any vehicle propelled by mechanical power. The regulation added that it included " any other vehicle of a class declared by regulations under this Act to be motor vehicles." A tractor was a motor vehicle, used solely for the purposes of traction. His Honor: A tractor is not used. for that purpose. It is a purely agricultural mechanism. Question of Damage to Roads. Mr. Rogerson pointed out that a tractor was often used on a road. In this instance it was used for road scooping. The magistrate had treated it as if it were a farm implement, upon which it would be unjust to impose the requirement of a license or registration. Tractors were machines with great potentialities for the destruction of roads, and it was the distinct purpose of the> Act to include such machines. Further, under the regulations the term motor-lorry included tractors.

His Honor: That is, if used for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods. Mr. Rogerson: No, it includes tractors without any qualifying words. If a tractor is within the definition of a motorlorry it would be -inconceivable that it would not be covered by the term motor vehicle. I submit that it was the obvious intention of the Act to include tractors.

His Honor suggested that much depended upon the question whether the tractor was being "used" in being taken along the street for repair. § A discussion followed as to what constituted "use," of both the tractor and the road, and sundry analogies were invoked. It was finally accepted as common ground that whether the tractor was being used depended upon whether it was at the time being propelled by its own power, or was being drawn" by another vehicle. Contentions for Defence, Mr. Hall Skelton maintained that the regulations cited by'"Mr. Rogerson dealt only with motor-lorries, arid made a tractor with one trailer to be a motor-lorry, not a motor vehicle, if employed for the conveyance of goods or passengers. The purpose of the Act was merely to deal with motor-cars and motor-buses. It was not directed toward tractors pure and simple, which were farm implements, or machines used in the subdivision of estates. In this instance, the tractor, had been used in subdivision.work, ftnd hftd sp<peared on the road for a purpose outside its ordinary functions. The whole question must be decided upon the dictionary definition —a carriage qr instrument for conveyance, as opposed to a machine for hauling or pulling. The magistrate's judgment, he submitted, was correct and should stand. Judgment was reserved.