Van as Private Car: Case Fails
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ii a King's Bench Divisional Court composed of Lord Hewart and Justices du Parcq and Goddard, last week, the question was debated whether a van which carried a load consisting of permanent fixtures can claim to be a private car and travel at over 30 m.p.h. in a derestrictecl area.
The appeal was against a decision of FeItha.m (Middlesex) magistrates, who had fined Mr. W. P. Burmingham, driver of a Van belonging to a film company, 20s, for driving the vehicle at 40 m.p.h.
Mr. Laurence Vine, for the appellant, explained that the vehicle had the chassis of a private car, with a van body. In it was a film-recording apparatus with batteries which were permanent fixtures. If the van, which was taxed as a private car, came within the category of that class of car,
no offence had been committed. It Was a class of vehicle, nbout which the legislature had forgotten and he
tended thatthat it waS in the category of a private car and was not, therefore, subject to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit:
Lord Hewart said that the vehicle was a goods van—a vehicle constructed or adapted for the conveyance of goods or a burden of any description. It was true that the Act made reference to certain vehicles, when dealing with the quantum of load; which carried permanent apparatus, and stipulated fiat the equipment. had to be considered on the question of load, so far as 'weight was concerned; but it did not follow that that was not a burden, which the apparatus, in this case, manifestly was. The case seemed to be so clear that it was transparent and the appeal would be dismissed.