MOTORISTS' LICENCES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19953, 23 May 1928, Page 13

MOTORISTS' LICENCES.

"NOT PERMANENTLY VALID." PERIOD DEFINITELY LIMITED. DECISION IN WELLINGTON. * .1 [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT. J WELLINGTON. Tuesday. A decision of interest to motorists was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., to-day when lie convicted several defendants who were charged with having driven unlicensed motor vehicles. Ute point at issue was the interpretation to be given to the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1927, in regard to the texpiry date of licences to use motor vehicles and licences to drive such vehicles. At the outset Mr. S. W. Fitzherbert, counsel for a defendant who was charged with having driven without a driver s licence for the current year, said he understood the decision given recently at Hamilton by Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., on a similar charge, was under appeal. Counsel thought it might be as well to hold over the hearing of the charge against the defendant until the appeal was dealt with. The Magistrate: I think you are m error in stating that that decision is the subject of an appeal. It is a fact that Mr. Luxford dismissed some of these informations, but he dismissed them under section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act. Under that section a decision was not subject to appeal. Another Point of View. Appearing for another defendant who was charged with having driven an unlicensed car, Mr. W. P. Rollings quoted section 10 of the Act as it now stands:— "It shall be the duty of every person being the owner of a motor vehicle to procure annually from a deputy-registrar a licence to nse such motor vehicle." Mr. Rollings said it had been contended that the apparent anomaly caused by striking out the section which fixed the expiry date of motor licences was overcome by section 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act, but he could not see how that section affected section 10 of the Act under review. Clearly the issue of licences was not invalidated, but it was not correct that licences expired on March 31. There was nothing on the licences themselves to show that they expired on March 31, and before the expiry took place the section fixing the expiry date was repealed. The Magistrate: Do you suggest that your licence runs on indefinitely so long as the law stands as it is ? Counsel: I suggest that once a licence is carried over March 31 it is kept in force until May 31, 1929. "Annually" did not necessarily mean at the end of every year, but could mean in or during every year. In view of the fact that the expiry date had been struck out the only reasonable interpretation could be that the licence remained in force after that date. Contention by Police. Senior-Sergeant Scott quoted section 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act in support of his contention that the licences under discussion expired on March 31, 1928. He pointed out that licences were available two months before the end of March. There was no obligation on motorists to get their licences in adVJince, but many preferred to do so. Pealing first with the question of drivers' licences, the magistrate said that section 20 of the 1924 Act provided that it was unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle unless he was the holder of a motor driver's licence. Then section 21 provided that a licence should remain in force until March 31 next after the date on which it was issued, and then expire. It was clear, therefore, that the licence contemplated bv that stntute was an annual licence. Pv the 19?7 Act the date of expirv of the annual licence wa« altered from March 31 to Mav 31 in each year. Plain Intention of Legislature. In view of the alteration it became necessary to repeal that portion of the 1924 Act which provided that a licence issued under that Act should expire on March 31 following the date of issue. It was contended by counsel that as there was no statutory provision fixing the date on which a licence issued under the 1924 Act should expire a licence became permanently valid. "I am not able to adopt this view," said the magistrate. "This contention seems to me to be contrary to the plain intention of the Legislature, namely, that the licence shall be an annual one, and I think it also conflicts with the letter of the statute. When the licence was issued there was a specific statutory provision that the date of expiry should be March 31. 1928. "There was no power to grant it for anv longer period, and the period for which it was granted has exnired. Tt seems to me that the defendants' contention conflicts with both the spirit and the letter of the statute. I think the point is also concluded by section 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act. "I think the same argument is applicable in respect of a motor licence. It is true that in respect of a motor licence the form which is issued does not mention the date io which it is applicable. The Act specifically says that a licence is to be apolied for and issued annually. I think, therefore, that in respect of a licence for a vehicle the licence has been issued and paid for until March 31. and at the date it was issued there was no power to grant it for a longer period." Each of the defendants was convicted and ordered to pay costs.