The Use of Motor Spirit in Chars-a-Bancs.
Page 19
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Important Appeal as to Definition.
In the King's Bench Divisional Court on Friday, before the Lord Chief Justice, Justices Ridley and Rowlatt, the appeal of Llandudno Motor and Garages Co., Ltd., v. George Thomas Guest, came up for hearing. The company appealed from a decision of the Conway Justices, where they were, charged on an information made by the Superintendent of Police that they on the 1st September, 1916, in the parish of Conway, Carnarvonshine, unlawfully permitted the use by Albert Edward Ostick of a certain motor spirit contrary to the Defence of the Realm Regulations, 1914. An information had also been laid against Mr. Frank 'Wilkes, director of the company, for causing. the use, and against the defeatdant—Ostick, for using the motor spirit. The three charges were, with the consent of all parties, heard together, with the result. that the company, Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Oetick, were convicted of the offence. The magistrate, however, decided to state a case for the opinion of the Divisional Court. Appellants admitted that Ostick was their servant, and acted under their orders, and also the same thing as regards the defendant Wilkes. 'They further admitted that Ostick was the driver, of a char-aebarres on the 1st September, 1916, and that the car was coming from Penmaenmawr. It was admitted that, the journey did not come within the exceptions set out in the regulations. According to these regulations, on and after 1st September, 1.916, meter spirit shall not be used for the purpose of a Charalthanes or such like vehicles ou any excursion or trips of any sort except trips in connection with ambulance or hospital work or the conveyance of wounded soldiers, or trips in connection with naval, military, or munition services, or the conveyance of munition .workers to or from their 'homes, or trips certified by the Chief Officer of Police in the area in which the motor spirit is used. If any person uses motor spirit or causes or permits motor spirit to be used in contravention of these regulations, he shall be guilty of a summary •offence against these regulations. According to the case stated by the Justices in these regulations, the expression "motor spirit" has the same meaning as that contained in the Finance Act, 1910. The Finance Act says the expression "motor spirit."' means an inflammable hydroeurbon,which is capable of being Used for providing reasonably efficient motor power for a motorcar. A sample of the liquid in thettank of the char-it-banes was taken and analysed by the Public Analyst, and Despondent contended that the liqMd used was a .contravention of the regulation.
Appellants contended that the word " inflammable " governed the word " hydrocarbon," and that no licence was necessary nor day payable under the Finance Act, 1910, for a liquid not giving of an inflammable vapour at a temperature of 73 degrees Fehr. Appellant also stated that they had tested the liquid in question 7 which showed that it was non-inflammable at a temperature exceeding 73 degrees Fahr. and that the respondent had not proved that the liquid in the tank of a car gave off an intlammalale vapour. Therefore, the summons should be dismissed.
The Justices found that as a fact the liquid in the tank. was motor spirit containing inflammable hydrocarbon capable of being used, and was, in fact; used for providing reasonably efficient motor power for the car within the Meaning of the Finance Act, 1910. They convicted the company, the manager and the driver. The question now 'to be decided by the High Court was whether on the facts the Justices came to the right conclusion. Mr. Ellis Griffith, KC., and Mr. Caradoc Rees, M.P., appeared for theappellants; Mr. Travers Humphreys repro.sented Alm respondent.
Mr. Ellis Griffith, KG., stated that the case was submitted from the Conway 'Justices who had convicted the appellants for an offence against the Defence of the Realm regulations of the 20th August, 1916. The case raised an interesting point as to whether the owners of the chars4-bancs could use petrol substitatea. After the regulations had been passed the Home Office issued a circular suggesting to the police that prosecutions should not take place with regard to the use of these substitutes which did not. pay the petrol tax. The police of CarnarYorishire did not act on that suggestion of the Homo Secretary. There was a diversion as far as this county was concerned, and that was the reason this appeal eas brought. The proceedings were taken to prevent chars-abanes being driven by the use of motor spirit. The appellant company have large motor works and they knew all about the operations of these regulations before they came into force on the 1st September last year. They prepared for the 1st September by procuring a substitute which could he used without contravening the regulations. Upon the 1st September the police sent an officerto take a sample of the liquid, and the sample was sent to the County Analyst on the 11th September. The only evidence given as to the nature of the liquid was that submitted by Mr. Low, the County Analyst. The certificate of the analyst submitted to the Justices showed that the liquid contained hydrocarbon. When it came to the finding of the Justices it was stated that the Justices upon the sworn testimony by the witnesses of the respondent in support of the charge, found as a fact that the liquid in the tank of the motor char-a-banes was motor spirit consisting of inflammable hydrocarbon—the adjective "inflammable" was added. The Justices came to their conclusion on the unsupported evidence of the County. Analyst, and they introduced an adjective which was not used in the analyst's certificate. Counsel contended ;that the appellants had used a substitute which did not come under the regulations, and as to which they did not require licence or paid eny duty.
Mr. Justice Ridley : What was it called?
Mr. Griffith: I am informed that it is called " Wital." • The Lord Chief Justice: What is it advertised to do?
Mr. Griffith: I do net know, my lord. I can imagine that
it was advertised as not coming within the Petrol'Restrietions Act,. The case presented -by the appellants was a simple one. This submission was that the prosecution did not put before the magistrates sufficient evidence to justify them in convicting the company, their manager and driver, of 'an offence under the regulations. The Lord Chief Justice said he was not quite sure whether he folly appreciated the mints raised. As he understood it, the eviselence of the analyst by his certificate showed that the Ucuid -contained hydrocarbon. So far that _was. all the evidence. There was a finding of fact that it contained inflammable hydrqcarbon reasonably capable of driving a motorcar. As he understood Mr. Griffith's contention that finding of Tact, based upon this staternent was not sufficient to warrant the Justices convicting the company and hi finding that the liquid was inflammable within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Griffith: It is not a motor spirit within the meaning of the Finance Act. There was no evidence that the liquid flashed below 73 degrees Fahr. He also submitted that before the Justices decided the case the company were entitled to have the liquid tested. Mr. Travers Humphreys stated that it was perfectly immaterial for the purpose of the commission of an offence against regulation 8G. whether the •liquid being used was inflammable above or below 73 degrees Fahr. Sub-section 7 defined the motor spirit, and it was admitted here that this liquid came within the definition of thee:section, if they used the term in the ordinary meaning. If aeferred to a liquid containing hydrocarbon which was, in facto inflammable, reasonably capable of being used to provide power fer motorcar. It had been stated that in that section " inflammable " meant at some particular temperature. The Act did
• not say so at all. Mr. -Justice Ridley: Is there anything in the Act of 1910 . . which defines inflammable?
. Mr. HnrophreYs:I don't think so, my lord. Hydrocarbon
waft inflammable. • • • Mr. Griffith : I hope I shall not be contentious— The Lord Chief Justice: Nor inflammable (laughter).
• Mr. Griffith: I can avoid that, my lord. The Act pro: scribed a test Whethercertain liquid would propel a motorcar. The inflammatory quality of the liquid varied we-10Y, as was well known. Petroletim products' which flashed above 73 degrees Fahr. did not pa•e-a tax under the Finance Act. The Lord Chief •Justice,: You may be perfectly righ. but I have never befOre had this matter under consideratio.i, and I did not know that this wa-s the case.
Mr. Griffith repliedthat the appellants had used this substitute and had never been asked to pay. The Home Secretary sea round a certificate,auggesting that these proseen.tions should not take place with regard to the use of substituteS which did net pay petrol duty. ThiS was acted upon throughout the country except in this unfortunate county Where the prosecution took' place. .
The Lord Chief Justice: The county (Carnarvon) is not unfortunate in all respects. .
Mr.. Griffith: I know that it has compensations, my lord. I-le urged that there should have beena test as to the inflammatory liquid before there was a conviction. A duty had • to be paid for the motor spirit, but not for the substitutes. Mr. Justice Ridley: You will have to say that it was not motor spirit because it does not Contain hydrocarbon?
Mr. Griffith: There is -obviously inflammable hydrocarbon in motor spirit.
The Lord Chief Justice: 'Was 'there eyidence before the magistrates that the -sprit is inflammable at less -• than 73 'degrees?
• Mr. Griffith: It is inflammable. up to 73 degrees and is a motor spirit—above 73 degrees it is not a motor spirit. The Lord Chief Justice Ought there not to have been some evidence on that given, by you? . Mr. Griffith replied that the burden of proof as to the inflammatory nature of the liquid was upon the prosecution.
Mr. Rees, who conducted the case in the Court below, took this point; when the analyst gave evidence he inacle no refer-, once to its being inflammatory.' The analyst's evidence was that he found hydrocarbon in the liquid.
The Judgment: L.C.J. and Two Other Justices of Appeal Unanimous.
. The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment., said this was a short matter for consideration by the Court: . It had reference to the motor spirit control regulation 8G. under the
Defence of the Realm Act; 1914. The Justices found upon the evidence of the witnesses that the liouid in the tank of the motor char-a-banes, was motor spirit containing inflate nimble hydrocarbon capable of being used, and was, in fact, providing Motive power for the 'char-a-banes. It was con tended by the 'appellants that there was no evidence upon
which the Justices could in lawconic to the conclusion to convict. There had been a_good deal of argunsent as to the
construction of the terms Of the Finance Act, 1910. By a regulation of the Defence of the Realm Act order it was provided that motor spirit should not be used for the pur pose ;of a char-a-bancs, and if a person did use motor spirit for this ,purpose he was guilty of a summary offence against the'regulation. Motor spirit had the same meaning as in the
Finance Act. 70 determine what was motor spirit they had
toe look at the Finanoe ...Act; 1910, Section 84, sub-section 7, which stated that the term motor spirit meant' any inflammable hydrocarbon capable' of being used for providing_ reasonably efficient motive power for a motorcar. This was very plain'. In this ease there was no doubt 'that upon the inia:lyste,certificate that the liquid used did contain hydro
carbon; that it was used for the purpose of driVine the motor char-h-barics, that it was reasonably efficient for that purpose,.
The necessary elementh lo.constitute an Offence were all found here. Mr. Ellis Grtleargued that under section 8 the Commissioners until(' make regulations prescribing tests for the
purpose of determining the hydrocarbon in the motor. spirit, but they could not regard this section of the Act. • He had come to the conclusion that the ;Instices were right. They were justified in regarding section 7 only in ascertaining the facts. Once it was quite clear that section 8 did r.at restrict
or limit the definitions of the Finance Act that the whole contention in this case disappeared. It followed that an offence had been committed, and that the Justices were right, and
for this reason the appeal must be dismissed. • • ,InsticeaRidicy and Rowlett concurred, and the appeal was • accordingly clismisscel with costs.