AN INVALID COUNTY COUNCIL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2734, 8 August 1906, Page 47

AN INVALID COUNTY COUNCIL.

At the City Police Court on Friday, Mr W. G. Riddel], S.M., gave judgment m the case Robert Bain (as inspector for Taieri County Council) v. James Kalor.

The case, ''which •was heaid on the 20th uid the 27fch ult., arose out of a refusal on the part of defendant to stop his horse and ca-rt when so requested, in order that the weight of the load and width of the tyres mig-ht be ascertained. — Mr D. Cooke appeared for comp.ainant, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for defendant. In giving judgment his Worship said . — " This information charges defendant witih refusing, after request by the inspector far the Taieri County Council, to stop a \<4ii.-Je driven by him on the Main South road at Burnsid«' witbic the Taieri County, contrary to a by-law made in that behalf by the Couirty Council. The by-law, which is intended to. regulate heavy traffic on the county roads, is made in pursuance of ' The Public Works Act, 1894,' ' The Public Works Amendment Aot, 1900,' and ' The Counties Act, 1886,' and the part section, part of iT under which the information is laid, states that if tb» county clerk, or any per&on authorised in that b&half in writing under the seal of tlw County Council, is of opinion that any vehicle or machine infringes th« by-law he may request the driver thereof to atop th« same, and the driver sball stop the same forthwith un-til the weight of such vehicle or machine, or the load thereon, or th« weight or measurement of the contents thereof, can be ascertained, and m default of the driver so doing he shall be guilty of *n offence. The by-law purpoita to have come into force on the Ist day of M«rcb 1902, bu* jfc was not published in the N*w Zealand Gazette until the 18th March. 1904 At the end of the advertisement in tbe Gazette there is a notification ,n the form of a certificate from the county clerk, dated the 9th day of February, 1904 that the foregoing by-law was made and adopted by the Taieri County Council at ft specia.! meeting held on the 6th December, 1901, and confirmed at a subsequent special meeting held on the 10'h January, 1902. A sealed copy of the bjvlaw and a copy of tho Gazette in which it waa published were put in evidence by *« informant Counsel for defendant confeuds that there is no evidence that the bylaw was c c!vt for approval to the Minister ot Public Works within seven days after it waa made as required by section 2, sub-section 1, of ' The Public Works and Government Raalwaya Act. Amendmerft Act, 1895,' and that if tins has not been drnie .Jhe by-law is invalid according to the decision in Adam* v Basbam 18 G-azette, L.R., 540). In support of this aigument h* draw* attention to the certificate of the county clerk dated 9th February, 1904. at the foot of the advertisement and points out that the by-.aw was apparently not forwarded at an eaxher date. For proof of the va'.idrty of the by-law tie informant rehea on section 306 of The Counties Vet 1886,' which states that a copy at •my by-law, sealed with the common seal of the corporate, shall be received a. evidei.ee of the same having been duly made as by that act provided unless th« conUraxy is proved This m,«ht have been sufficient if the by-law had been made wholly «»*"*« authority of the Counties Act. for there , » no provision in that act requiring^ £•<*«»£ Council to forward a copy to the Minister ».thin «yen days after making But the bylaw is m.«de binder ' The Public Works Act, 1894,' and ' Amendment Act, 1900 ' as well as ' The Count im Act, 1886.' and that bemg so 7 do i.ot think tbe production of the copy In- 'aw and Gazette containing publication ,s corc'uwve evdence that every requirement necewfcry to make it valid has been compiled H£y T i%rs i^wss-M ft ££ ?ißs^SnTof? iB s^SnTof «?3^SS and Covenant Railways Aot, 1895, has not been complied with, and the onus of proving that it haa been complied with lies on the informant. According to the decision in A.dams v. Easbam the duty cast upon the cow oil to forward a copy of the by-law to the Mim&ter of Public Works within seven days after it ha? b»en made in mandatory, mid if not complied with, the by-law i« invalid There i« *io nroof that this duty his besn complied with by th« ccuucil and,

that being so, tbe information must be dis» missed. Costs, £1 Is." At the close of the judgment Mr D. Cooke gave notice of intention to appeal.