APPEAL SUCCEEDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19510, 14 December 1926, Page 16

APPEAL SUCCEEDS.

TAKAPUNA BUS PROSECUTION. SUPREME; COURT JUDGMENT. SERVICE IN TWO DISTRICTS. SEPARATE LICENCES REQUIRED. The proprietors of a motor-bus service operating in two motor-omnibus districts must obtain licences from each of the licensing authorities concerned. This is the effect of the reserved decision delivered by Mr. Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court yesterday, in the appeal by the Takapuna Borough Council (Mr. Finlay and Mr. Lowry), against the decision of Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in dismissing an information against Alfred Henry Smith (Mr. Northcroft- and Mr. Gould), for operating his bus service in Takapuna without obtaining a licence from No. 2 Licensing Authority. Smith ran a service between Devonport and Takapuna and applied for a licence from No. 1 Licensing Authority, which has jurisdiction over motor-bus traffic in Devonport. The issue of the licence was deferred pending the decision of the Court oa the points raised in the appeal. His Honor said he considered the Magistrate had not given sufficient consideration to certain provisions of section 4, which plainly indicated that a licensing authority with exclusive jurisdiction was constituted for each district. Validity of Regulations. Dealing with the contention of respondent that the regulation requiring application to be made to the licensing authority for a licence was ultra vires, the Judge said he could see no reason to doubt the validity of the regulation. Where there was a competent authority to which an Act of Parliament entrusted the power of making regulations, it was for that authority to decide what regulations were necessary; and any regulations . which that authority might decide to make should be supported unless they were manifestly unreasonable or unfair. His Honor dealt at some length with the further submission by respoudent that every motor-bus service under the Act must be regarded as one service throughout its whole length; that a motor-bus service, such as the respondent's, was nol; divisible; that it was a service within two districts, but not a service within either of those districts within the meaning of section 5; and that the Legislature had omitted to make provision for such a service. "If the submission is correct." he said " it follows that only such, motorbus services as are carried on wholly within one motor-bus district are within the Act and evasion would, in some cases, bs a simple matter." Conditions of Services. ' The judgment further ruled there was nothing in the regulations or in the Act prohibiting the carrying on of a- motorbus service. What was prohibited was the carrying on of a motor-bus. service without a licence from the licensing aiuthority of the district within which it was carried on. That was a common method of regulation. As to the insurance provisions of the regulations, His Honor said he could see no difficulty in arranging for the issue and deposit of a duplicate policy with one of the licensing authorities. He then dealt with the final contention for respondent—that upon the true construction of the Act, motor-omnibus services existing when it came into force were not affected' by its provisions, and might therefore be carried on indefinitely without any licence. For the purposes of the argument it was not disputed that section 5 as it stood would apply to existing as well as to future services, but it was' contended that such words as might be necessary to exclude existing services, ought to be read into it. "That is a strong thing to do and would ibe justified only, if at all, upon the clearest grounds," His Honor said. "In this case, I think it would be a serious encroachment upon the legislative power." "It may be/' His Honor added, "that np provision is made for compensation in cases like the present, where the motor-buses and plant are not used solely within one district, but I have not to decide that, and—decline to speculate as to the intentions of the Legislature on the question." The appeal was therefore upheld and the case remitted to the. magistrate to record a conviction accordingly. Costs, £ls 15s, and disbursements, were allowed against respondent.