Joint County By-Laws

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 91, 22 August 1923, Page 3

Joint County By-Laws

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT, The validity of the Taranaki counties joint by-law regarding the been-1 sing of motor vehicles was challenged in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday before His Honor M.r Justice Chapman by the appeal of William Millar Archibald from the conviction recorded against him at Stratford by Mr A. M. M,owlem, 8.M., for plying for hire without a license as provided for by the by-law mentioned. Mr H. R. Biilling appeared for the appellant, and Mr J. L. Weir, with Mr A. Coleman, for the counties which are parties to the joint by-law.. In opening his cate, Mr Billing said that there were two grounds) of. appeal, first, that the by-law was ultra vires and void, as being repugnant to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1908, and, secondly", on the grounds of res judicata, i.e., that the matter bad been previously dealt with and settled. Under the Municipal Corporations Act, ho said, vehicles could be licensed by a. borough to ply for. b|Tro and such license was good for the country embraced by a five-mile radius of the borough. Under those circumstances a taxi proprietor who took out a license in Stratford or in Eltha.nl, two town a in the middle of counties, had the right to ply for hire five, miles out on the county roads. The joint bylaw said that tliis was not the case.

Regarding tho second ground of appeal, Mr Billing saifi that Archibald was proceeded against in Septembor for plying for hire without a. license on July 7. He produced a. Taranaki County Council license, which the Magistrate considered sufficient, and the case was dismissed. He was subsequently brought before the Court with respect to a similar offence on July 1. Mr Billing said that, at the first hearing, there Was no evidence as to an offence on July 7, but there was with respect to July 1, and he contended that

the Magistrate had power to amend the complaint from July 7 to July 1, or convict without amending. At the second hearing exactly the same evidence was offered and he submitted, therefore, that seeing that the Magistrate had not convicted in “the first instance when ho had power to do so ho could not convict at t the second hearing, as the matter had already been dealt with.