INTERESTING CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 97, 5 February 1936, Page 6

INTERESTING CASE.

A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY. CROWDED MEETING INCIDENT. (Per Press Association.) WANGANUI, This Day. An interesting point was raised at Court this morning, when as a sequel to a meeting addressed by Mr G. W. Forbes in the Regent Theatre on November 12, two business men were charged with having failed to comply with a direction of an officer authorised by the Superintendent of the Fire Brigade, by refusing to leave a passageway. The building was overcrowded and when requested by a constable, defendants refused to do so, and those who had already been removed crowded back again. Mr W. R. Bain, for the defence, contended that under section 72 of tlie Fire Brigades Act the constable was not an officer authorised by the superintendent and it was doubtful whether the word “officer” could even include ordinary members of the I ire Brigade. The Act was badly drawn and on the present case, which was a test, woul rest whether an amendment would be necessary. In giving his decision in favour ot the Fire Board, the Magistrate said it would create an anomaly if the fire superintendent had authority over a police constable in time of fire, yet had no authority in anticipation of a fire m order to prevent possible loss ot lire. Accordingly he would adopt the popular meaning of the word. Defendants were fined 10s, with costs.