HEAVY TRAFFIC

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20190, 5 July 1928, Page 8

HEAVY TRAFFIC

DAMAGE TO A ROAD Timber Company Suffers The Maximum Penalty “DEFIED BY-LAW”: NO LENIENCY The reserved decision of Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., has been delivered in the test case, Waimarino County Council v. the Otiranui Timber Co. (heard at Raetihi Magistrate’s Court, on May 2? last). It decides a very interesting and complex question, which is of interest to all local authorities. The Waimarino County Council (for whom Mr Ritchie appeared) sued the Otiranui. Timber Company Ltd. (Mr Waldegrave) under its by-law regulating the cartage of timber in loads amounting to heavy traffic, and claimed to be entitled to be reimbursed for the special damage done to a main highway under its control. The defendant company had taken out a heavy traffic license under the motor lorry regulations and claimed: (a) That the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924 and the Public Works Amendment Act, 1924, and the regulations matte thereunder impliedly repeal any by-laws made by a local authority prior to the road in question being gazetted a main highway; and that the license fee paid in respect of any motor lorry is all sufficient. (b) That the motor lorry regulations made under the aforesaid Acts are unworkable and are meaningless when read with a by-law made under Section 151 of the Public Works Act, 1908, attempting to regulate extraordinary heavy timber traffic. (c) That the road in question, being a main highway, the by-law in question became inoperative in so far as it affected this particular road, and (d) that the by-law was void for unreasonableness. The Magistrate, in a lengthy judgment, dealt with, each item of the defence seriatim, and held that the bylaw was valid and reasonable, and fined the defendant company the maximum fine on each information. He added that, even though the case was brought as a test case, and that usually a conviction in such circumstances was followed by a nominal penalty, still he regarded seriously the company’s actions, as it carried on its timber carting operations deliberately, in defiance of the by-law, and with the knowledge that certain other millers were paying for the damage which they did to the road. Further, he added that when a defendant deliberately acts in defiance of a by-law and then pleads its invalidity in defence of his actions, he should expect no leniency, as the laws of the country provide a simple method for a person to challenge the validity of a bylaw without the necessity of acting in contravention of it.

To the maximum penalty of £5 inflicted in each case, the Magistrate also ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the information, witness expenses and solicitor’s fee. Security for appeal has been fixed.