LICENSE LIMITS EXCEEDED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVI, Issue 21380, 24 June 1939, Page 8

LICENSE LIMITS EXCEEDED

“Special Occasions” Says Magistrate

Transport Department To Appeal

By Telegraph—Press Association DUNEDIN, July 23.

A reserved decision of considerable importance to the Dunedin City Corporation involving its right to convey a party of persons other than to places stipulated on the terms of the passenger service license issued by the Transport Department was given in the Magistrate’s Court to-day by Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. His Worship held that as the eight charges that were the basis of the case brought against the Corporation by the Transport Department constituted the carriage of persons on “special occasions,” the action by the Department must fail. His Worship said that what was meant by this term was not clearly defined in either the English or New Zealand Acts. One of the charges related to the conveyance of a party to Nelson, and in this instance he was dubious whether this charge should not be sustained, though if the vehicle were hired by a party for transportation purposes, the vehicle could really be classed as being a private one. The charges against the Corporation were that it did carry on a passenger service other than pursuant to the authority and in conformity with the terms of the passenger service license granted under Part II of the Licensing Act, 1931. They all related to the conveyance of members of several Dunedin clubs and other organisations to functions outside the city. The magistrate said that it was admitted that the City Corporation did not hold a passenger service license for any of the trips that were the subject of the charges, and claimed exemption under Section 21b of the New Zealand Transport Licensing Act. The question for consideration was simply whether in each case a private party was carried on a “special occasion.” His Worship then discussed the meaning of this term as outlined in the English Road Traffic Act, 1930, on which the New Zealand Act was apparently framed, and said that the framing of the former Act had been the subject of several cases in which j disagreement had been arrived at by ! various learned authorities. Under I our own Act there was no guide as to I what constituted a “special occasion.” I His Worship added that he was unable to agree with the only New Zea- ! land authority. He found that each of the eight trips undertaken by the City Corporation formed a “special occasion.” The Transport Department’s action therefore failed.

Leave was given to the Department to appeal against the decision.