BUS OWNER SECURES INJUNCTION AGAINST BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18055, 15 January 1927, Page 10

BUS OWNER SECURES INJUNCTION AGAINST BOROUGH COUNCIL.

DECIDES QUESTION OF LICENSING AUTHORITY. (Special to the “Star.”) AUCKLAND, January 15. A motion by Alfred Hendry Smith for a writ of prohibition restraining the Takapuna Borough Council from functioning as a licensing authority for No. 2 District under the Motor Omni bus Traffic Act, 1925, was heard in the Supreme Court. The hearing was begun just before the Christmas holidays, but was ad journed, defendant Council giving an undertaking that plaintiff's motor ’bus service between Devonport and Milford would be allowed to run as usual in the meanwhile. Counsel yesterday had come prepared for much legal argument, and the table in Court was covered with dozens of volumes from the Law Library. Mr Justice Stringfer and Air Justice Reed were on the bench. The grounds for the action were al leged bias on the Council's part, particularly as, shown in a circular issued by the Mayor of the Borough that the Council had already determined the case. Finally it was submitted that 1 it was the obvious intention of the Act to support local authorities and to make them the sole licensing bodies. It was submitted that even if bias did exist that it did not affect the legal standing of the Takapuna Council. Air Justice Stringer: There is no doubt that tJie Act has invaded one of the principles of common law, namely, that pecuniary interest in a concern should be a disqualification for legal jurisdiction. Air Finlay: That may be so, but if the Legislature, with a full knowledge of all the facts, places this Act on the Statute Book, there is, I submit, no appeal from it. Mr Justice Stringer: But even if the. Legislature has declared financial in terests are no disqualification there are other principles upon which this Court can adjudicate. Air Finlay: I submit that to overrule the provisions of the Act would be to assume Legislative function above that of the State. Air Justice Reed said that the Governor-General could make an Order-in-Council whereby an authority could be taken over. It was even possible for an authority such as Takapuna to be absorbed in Auckland city. Argument is proceeding. A verdict was given for plaintiff by virtue of which the Council will be prohibited from acting as a licensing authority in No. 2 District. Thgrounds were that the Council had predetermined its policy..