TRANSPORT LICENSING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22286, 12 June 1934, Page 8

TRANSPORT LICENSING

INTERESTING APPEAL CASE CASE STATED FOR SUPREME COURT. ■ (Pee UnjTed Press Association.) . . ' NELSON, Juno 11. When the, case of H. Anstic’s appeal a gainst the Transport Licensing Authori - ties’, cancellation of a license for 1 the Christchurch-Nelspn. passenger service came before the Transport Co-ordination Board, counsel for the appellant, Mr J. P. Hayes, protested against the board hearing' the appeal bn the. grounds that two of its three members were members of the licensing authority which decided on the , cancellation, of- the license. “ Firsthand foremost ,1 wish to. protest against this, board Hearing the appeal,” said Mr HaVCs. He described section 17, sub-section 1 arid 2, of the Transport Act of last year as radical! I’ve not been able to find anything like it in a diligent search. It is riot in the English Roads Act, and to go back to anything like it in English law one has to go back to the Star Chamber. ; , , - The chairman, Sir Stephen Allen (smilingly)A bit before my time, Mr Hayes.” \ : Mr Hayes: Yes; hut it led,to a revolution and cost a king his .life. Mr Hayes clairried that section 17 of the Act .did not empower a member of the. Co-ordination Board to hear and appeal against the; decision of an a uthority of which Be" was a member. “The board may hear,the appeal,’,’ be said, “ but not including a member whose decision is’ being appealed against. 1 In this case two of the board were members of the licensing authority concerned. If, the board decided to hear the appeal, it will be necessary to' take the matter to the Supreme Corirt, " but I 'hope' to persuadethe; hoard that: it' has- no jurisdiction ,to hear this appeal.”' ;■ It would be futile to appeal to a,’ board of three when two of its members had heard the chse before, he said, It .was unthinkable, revolutionary,, arid: ufijust. It was- agains t ithe ;prineipi e of the .court of justice. It would be 1 in the public interest for the board, to stateVa, base for the opinion of the Supreme: Court. After consideration the chainrian .stated that, the board had, decidedVtdf: adopt counsel's suggestion and send the .matter to the Supreme Court. “It is an interesting and important point, and it is important that we should not hear it ourselves,” said the chairman. The question to be submitted to the Supreme Court is: Has the Co-ordina-tion Hoard jurisdiction to hear, the appeal seeing that two members of it were members of the licensing authority which gave the decision appealed against? -iV,,;;''; .