IS A THRESHING MACHINE A WAGON?
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
We can now repoit the decision, in the case to winch we referred in our issue of the 2nd. inst. (page 112 wife.). This concerned the summoning of Messrs. James Smith and Sons, of Shakerly, near Tyldesley, for not having the tare weights painted on certain wagons. The .socalled wagons were a threshing machine and a trussing machine. The, Bury (Lancs.) magistrates gave their decision against the owners, and imposed a penalty of 5s. and vosts.
This decision was unfortunately influenced by another which was given a few days earlier, in the Divisional Court, in the case of Williams v. Wood. On that occasion, we regret to say, the respondent did not appear, either himself or by counsel, to argue th point. In the ease at Bury, the defendants were represented by Mr. J. R. Macdonald, on the, instructions of Messrs. Joynson-Hicks and Co., of London. It was here lucid that the threshing machine and the trusser were each attached to four wheels by means of framework or undercarriages, and rested upon the axles on which the road wheels revolved, and that the machines were fixed to these undercarriages by bolts and screws. When separated. from the machines, the undercarriages and wheels, both front and rear, were distinct from each other, and forraed separate parts of that which with the machine constituted one movable vehicle. Furthermore, the thresher and the trusser were capable of work in a stationary position without being attached to the carriages and wheels, and they were attached to the latter for the purpose of transit only. The Bury Justices then referred to the case of Williams v. Wood, in which the question arose whether a pair of harrows and scuppers, resting on a framework on wheels, came within the meaning of Section 17 of the Locomotive Act of 1898.
In stating a case, the Bury magis trates quoted the following extract from the findings of Mr. justice Channell, in the case of Williams V. Wood :—" The only question is whether they were vehicles. I believe we all think they were meant in their use in the field not to be on wheels, but if when they went on the road they were put on wheels either a separate carriage adopted for them on which they were put, or wheels attached to them by some kind of framework which was put into action so that when they got on the road they might run on those wheels instead of their spikes going into the ground, then the wheel apparatus of a separate carriage on which they were to go it is quite clear is a vehicle. It was cat rying the harrows. I think equally if instead of having separate wheels of its own not always in use hut which could be put into use so that there was a framework with mdseels attached which would carry the thing on wheels instead of going on its spikes equally that framework would be a vehicle. That is my view of the thing. Therefore I think these things must have been constructed so as to be vehicles within the meaning of the definition."
Following this extract, they held that the thresher and trusser were vehicles within the meaning of Section 17 of the 189S Act.