Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700301 |
| Published date | 01 July 1953 |
| Date | 01 July 1953 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal of Criminal Law
VOL.
XVII.
No.3
]UI.,v-$nPTn:amnR, 1953
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
CARRIAGE OF GOODS
IN
ASHOOTING
BRAKE
ON 22nd April 1953
at
Bow Street Magistrates' Court
Harry
Munday appeared
in
answer
to
asummons
for using a goods vehicle in Charing Cross Road on
30th
December 1952 for
the
carriage of goods in connection
with
his
trade
or business without being in possession of
the
special licence required
by
s. 1 (i) of
the
Road
and
Rail
Traffic Act 1933.
The
case was heard before Sir Laurence
Dunne,
the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
The
defendant
pleaded
not
guilty
to
the
summons
and
put
up
the
defence
that
the
vehicle in question was
not
a goods vehicle.
The evidence for
the
prosecution disclosed
that
the
defendant, who was described as a film showman, was
driving his
Humber
Snipe shooting brake wagon in Charing
Cross Road with a film projector, a folding cinema screen,
and
several tins of film in
the
rear of it. The vehicle was
stated
to have two long 'coach' seats facing forward behind
the
driver's seat. These long seats were bolted to
the
floor of
the
vehicle
but
were collapsible in
that
the
backs
of
the
seats could be folded forward into a well in order
to
form a flush, straight, platform upon which goods could
be carried in bulk.
At
the
time
the
offence was alleged to have been
committed
the
long seats were
not
collapsed-i.e.
were in
position for use as passenger seats. The film projector
was
stated
to
be placed in a
space-some
two feet
by
four
feet-behind
the
back seat, where according
to
the
defence
aspare wheel was
kept;
the
folding screen was in a long
box
resting upon
the
backs of
the
two long seats,
and
the
tins of film were in
the
well between
the
two seats.
K193
194
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL LAW
The
prosecution
stated
in evidence
that
the
vehicle
was
fitted
with
a
back
door or doors as found in a normal
light commercial van. This, however, was traversed in
cross-examination
by
the
defence.
On being asked
by
the
Police,
the
defendant
admitted
that
he was
not
in possession of
the
special licence.
The
prosecution alleged
that
the
defendant's shooting
brake
was,
at
the
time, a goods vehicle used for
the
carriage of
goods
and
that
aspecial licence was therefore required.
In
s. 1 (2) of
the
Road
and
Rail Traffic Act 1933, a
goods vehicle is defined as
"a
motor vehicle constructed or
adapted
for use for
the
carriage of goods".
The
vehicle in
question,
the
prosecution submitted, was a goods vehicle
within
the
meaning of
the
subsection.
It
was contended
that,
if
it
was denied
that
the
vehicle was 'constructed' for
the
carriage of goods,
the
term
'adapted'
in
the
definition
would apply.
The
vehicle
may
not
have been specifically
constructed for
the
carriage of goods
but
was one of a class
of vehicle
that
was capable of carrying goods.
The
rear
seats of
the
vehicle were collapsible in such away
that
the
platform
thus
formed could be used for transporting a
substantial goods load and,
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
offence, although
the
seats were
not
collapsed,
the
vehicle
was in fact carrying goods in connection
with
the
defend-
ant's
business
and
in
the
prosecution's view was
adapted
for
the
carriage of goods
and
came within
the
statutory
definitions.
The
case of French v. Champkin (1920, 1
K.B.
76) was
mentioned where
the
words 'constructed or
adapted'
used
in
asimilar context were under consideration.
It
was held
in
that
case
that
the
word
'adapted'
did
not
mean 'suitable'
but
'altered so as to make
the
vehicle
apt'.
Lord Reading
C.J. held
that
"the
words (constructed or adapted)
are
intended to cover
the
case of a vehicle which was
not
constructed solely for
the
purpose of conveying goods in
the
course of trade,
but,
after
its
construction
had
been
made
apt
for
that
purpose". Sankey
J.
commented on
the
distinction between
'adapted'
and
'adaptable'.
Without
calling on
the
defence Sir Laurence
Dunne
said
that
this particular vehicle was in fact adual purpose
one.
The
passenger seats were so constructed as
to
be
adaptable for
the
carriage of goods
by
folding
the
seats
COURTS OF SUMMARY
JURISDICTION
195
into a well, or hole, in
the
floor creating a clear space
at
the
back
of
the
driver's seat. The defendant, said to be a
film showman, was carrying film equipment in
the
back
of
the
shooting brake,
but
at
the
time
the
offence was
alleged to have been committed
the
seats
had
not
been
collapsed
and
the
vehicle was therefore in a
state
unadapted
for
the
carriage of goods.
He
thought
that
unless
the
seats
had
been collapsed
the
vehicle was
not
constructed for
the
carriage of goods.
Ashooting-brake was
not
a vehicle of
the
same genus as a
lorry or a van.
The
body was
not
adapted
for goods until
the
seats
had
been lowered. The defendant's vehicle was
not
constructed solely for
the
carriage of goods
and
was
not
adapted
unless
something-i.e.
folding down
the
seats
-was
done. As
that
act
had
not
been done he did
not
think
that
the
vehicle was a goods vehicle needing aspecial
licence.
The
vehicle was adaptable
but
not
"adapted".
The
Magistrate therefore dismissed
the
summons
and
awarded costs against
the
prosecution.
He
indicated
that
he would be willing to
state
a case
if
application was made.
OBSTRUCTION BY
LICENSED
STREET
TRADER
On
4th
June,
Simeon Goldberg was charged before
Mr. F.
J.
Powell, Metropolitan Magistrate
at
Clerkenwell
Magistrates' Court with wilfully obstructing
the
thorough-
fare
at
Exmouth
Street, Finsbury,
contrary
to
the
Metro-
politan Police Act, 1839, s. 54 (6).
Two constables gave evidence
that
Goldberg was a
stall holder
and
was licensed
by
the
Borough Council
to
trade
in
the
street which was used on certain days of
the
week as a market.
He
was selling fancy goods
by
Dutch
auction
and
in doing so
had
caused a crowd
to
assemble.
The
crowd completely blocked
the
footway
and
most of
the
roadway so
that
pedestrians
and
vehicles
had
the
greatest difficulty in getting by.
Mr. Powell asked
if
Goldberg was
not
entitled
by
his
street
trader's
licence
to
act
as he was doing.
He
thought
that
the
authority
in making
the
street a
market
must
have realised
that
some obstruction was inevitable.
In
reply
to
this, counsel for
the
Police drew
the
magis-
trate's
attention
to
the
London County Council (General
To continue reading
Request your trial