Dalton J.
Branctha v.Perera
( 40 )
1926. loaded and equipped/* Hence it is argued that the by-law contem-Dai/tox >t plates an offence being committed only when the actual weight of
the vehicle and its load is greater than the stated weight. The
B™*erlru * by-law, however, makes use of the same words “total weight’*as the notification which I have set out. The notification and theby-laws must clearly be read together. If actual weight wasintended, it would have been very easy to say so. One must havereference to the aim, scope, and object of the by-laws and noticesthereunder as a whole. Regard may be hud to the practicabilityof a particular interpretation or the reasonableness of any provisionin interpreting what the law making body has stated, it is obvioushere that if effect be given to the argument advanced for appellant,apart* from the inconvenience to which the Magistrate callsattention, the provision would be unworkable without a. large bodyof traffic inspectors along the roads continually checking thenumber of passengers entering and leaving the vehicles. One isentitled to presume that the intention was not to enact what mayunder the circumstances be impracticable or unreasonable.
Apart, however, from this, as the Magistrate points out, thenotification lays down the modified conditions referred to in theby-law (85 (2)) under which the charge was laid. In my opinion' bis conclusion that the words “ total weight of the lorry ” in section85 (2) mean the total weight stated in the notification, when thevehicle is fully loaded and equipped, is correct, and that under thecircumstances here the bus came within the term “ lorry “ as usedin the by-law.
The conviction must therefore be affirmed, and the appealdismissed.
Appeal dismissed.