LORRY AND TRAILER.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17981, 28 March 1930, Page 8

LORRY AND TRAILER.

AN INTERESTING CASE. PROSECUTION BY LOCAL BODY. JUDGMENT RESERVED. A case of considerable interest to local bodies was heard in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court this morning before Mr F. W. Platts, C.M.G., S.M., when Colin Tuck, was charged with operating a motor conveyance, namely a motor truck and trailer, making a combined load on the Morr-insville road, (a third class road) and carrying a weigh! he was not authorised to carry. The traffic inspector of the Waikato County, A. I. McGuire, outlined the facts of the prosecution. He said that defendant had been carrying logs from Eureka to Frankton for sawmilling and the means of conveyance used was r. combined truck and trailer. The total length of road was about 13 miles of which half a mile was a fifth class road over which defendant had received permission to carry a load noi unreasonably large. Ten miles were gazetted as third class while the remainder of the road running through the Borough of Hamilton was a first class road. The matter complained of was that the load was a combined and not a severed load. The load that was carried was 8 tons 11 cwt. including the weights of the two vehicles. This was in access of the amount allowed to be carried by any one vehicle over a third class road. Under Misapprehension. Assistant Traffic Inspector Robertson gave evidence as to the weight of the lorry, load and trailer when put over the weigh-bridge at Hamilton. Tlie trailer he said was attached to the lorry by a pole, so that the trailer could bo detached from the lorry by disconnecting a pin affixed to the pole. Cross-examined by Mr J. F. Strang, counsel for defendant, Traffic Inspector McGuire, admitted that no prosecution would have been brought had the logs been sawn in two and separate loads made to be carried by the truck and trailer respectively. Defendant was under the misapprehension that he was entitled to carry a ten ton load inclusive of the weight of the vehicles. Mr Strang in addressing the Bench pointed out that the whole essence of the complaint made by the local authority was that a combined load bad been carried and that had the logs been severed between the lorry and the trailer no prosecution would have been brought against his client. He was quite prepared to accept the classification ol' the roads as specified by the traffic inspector. Quite Within Rights. Mr Strang contended that, there was nothing in cither the. Public Works Act, 1928, or the Motor Vehicles Act of 1924, which called for a severance of these loads on the motor lorry and trailer. His client had applied for and received a license for each. Mr Strang then went on to show, from his interpretation ol’ the Public W orks Act and Motor Vehicles Act, that his client was quite within his rights to employ the trailer and lorry as he had done. He stressed the importance of His Worship taking into consideration that there would have been no alteration in the distribution of weights had the loads been severed. Traffic Inspector McGuire reminded the Bench that in a similar case at Te Aroha, about 12 months ago the Magistrate had held that a trailer attached to a motor lorry and used in this way constituted one load. Judgment was reserved.