MOTOR-LORRY TRAFFIC.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19405, 13 August 1926, Page 15

MOTOR-LORRY TRAFFIC.

VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS. CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS. TEST CASE IN WAITOMO. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT! ] TE KUITI, Thursday. .An important test case, involving the validity of the classification of roads under the motor-lorry regulations of the Waitomo County Council, was heard in the Magistrate's , Court, when the , Waitomo County Council proceeded against George Higginson, for a breach of the classification in the county, which limits the loads carried to four tons. Mr. Mackersey appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Vernon for dafendant. Mr. Orr-Walker, S.M., presided. The facts were admitted, and the ease resolved itself into argument as to .the validity of the regulations, and the classification, i Mr. Vernon contended that the Public Works Amendment Act, 1924, gave a local body power to classify roads according to their suitability for motor traffic, but it did not give any power to prohibit any class of vehicle from using these roads. In other words, power was given to classify and nothing more. It was suggested that the purpose of the classification was not to prohibit vehicles above a certain weight from using a road, but to provida a convenient basis for a division of heavy traffic license fees among the different, local bodies of the district. The second point submitted was tljat the regulations we 1:2 ultra vires, 011 the ground that they amounted to a delegation of the legislative powers conferred on the Governor-General. There was nothing in the Act that authorised any delegaion of power to -make regulations. The regulations declared that in the case of main highways the classification should be made by the Main Highways Board. This particular road in question was a main highway, but the classification had been made by the Waitomo County Counand was therefore without effect. It was admitted that the board had delegated the council a good deal in authority over the road. It was argued that the board had no power to delegate the classification, and that even if it had that power the board had not done so. In his reply, Mr. Mackersey said that even if the Act gave no definite power to prohibit breaches of classification, the Court should take a liberal view of the .whole Act, and add the power in order to prevent it from becoming an absurdity. The general powers in the Act were sufficiently wide to cover the regulations. With regard to the delegation of powers by the Governor-General, this was denied. It was held that even if this could be proved it only affected part of the regulations, and the main portion still held good. Counsel argued that the delegation of power by the Highways Board to classify was valid. Decision was reserved.