RACE DAY IN VULCAN LANE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 35, 9 February 1906, Page 5

RACE DAY IN VULCAN LANE.

£2 FOR LOITERING. James Sellars, who described himself as a wharf labourer, was charged at the Police Court this morning, before Mr Dyer, S.M., with having loitered in Vul-can-lane on January 29th last in such a manner as to obstruct the use of the footpath. Sub-Inspector Black prosecuted. Constable Horan said that on January 29 he asked defendant and several others to move off the footpath, and the others went away, but Sellara stepped on to the roadway and then refused to move any further. The lane was full of men at the time, as it was the day of the Takapuna races. Defendant and two others appeared to be studying a racebook at the time. Constable Syms said that the lane was completely blocked on the occasion, two of the force having all their time taken to keep the men moving. The defendant, a labourer, said on oath that he was transacting a little matter of business with a man, and objected to moving away until he had finished his conversation. The business matter was concerning some kauri gum. He did not deny that he went there occasionally to transact a little, betting, but on this occasion he was there on other business entirely. -He considered he was fulfilling the requirements of the situation by stepping off the footpath on to the roadway. His Worship remarked that on race days the lane was so thronged with people that it "was difficult for passersby to cross it. Bookmakers had no right to obstruct the lnne a-a they did. If they wanted to carry on their business they should do it somewhere else. With regard to the defendant, however, the matter was one of simply loitering and defying the police to move him from the roadway. He would inflict a heavier penalty, however, than had it been in another locality, and if it did not have the result of clearing the lane on race days he would feel inclined to inflict the full penalty the law is allowed. It waa distinctly discreditable to have the lane obstructed in the way it often was. His Worship then inflicted a fine of £2 and costs (7/), and upon defendant expressing his inability to state auy definite period within which he would be able to pay it, re was given a fortnight within which to come up to the mark, with the alternative of 14 days.