NAME REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 40, 17 February 1937, Page 12

NAME REFUSED.

TRAFFIC CONTROL. INSPECTOR'S DUTY. ADVICE BY MAGISTRATE. The opinion that traffic inspectors should give bheir names when asked to do eo was expressed by Mr. C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court this morning when James Robert Nieper was charged with having no driver's license and with using insulting language. Defendant, who was represented by Mr. R. A. Singer, pleaded guilty *to the charge of having no driver's license, and not guilty to thfr other charge. Sergeant M. Flanagan said the defendant was driving a car at Broadway on December 24 and another car ran into the rear of it. Defendant epgke to a traffic inspector, who eaid that he did not see the accident. Defendant was asked to produce hie driver's license, and the police later found out that he did not have a current year's license. Inspector's Evidence. John Henry Wymer, traffic inspector employed by the Newmarket Borough Council, said he did not give his name when ask'ed by defendant. Witness then asked defendant to ehow hie license, and alleged that he then used insulting language. The magistrate eaid that inspectors had to do unpleasant things sometimes on duty, but he could have said what his name was. "It costs you nothing , to give your name," added the magistrate, "and you would have put youreelf on the right eifle." The magistrate added that he woula always protect traffic officers in their duty. Herbert Otto, who was standing on the corner at the time of the accident, said he thought the defendant wae a bit dominec-ring, and a bit unwise to argue in the way he did. Defendant said he went to the inspector to ask the name of the driver of the other car. The inspector seemed to get annoyed. Witness asked for his name as he had no number. Each time he asked he got a refusal. Mr. Singer asked that the charge should be dismissed as it was trivial. Not Helpful. The magistrate said he proposed to j take that course. He added that in his opinion the inspector had not been helpful, and the defendant thought that he was not. Evidently the inspector resented being spoken to and showed his anger, and one thing led to another. No doubt some words had been \ised in a fit of anger. The inspector might have avoided it if he had given his name when asked. Both were to blame, in hie opinion. The inspectors had a difficult duty at times, and had•to meet excitable people, but an inspector was the one person in the world who should keep his temper and control of himself. If they lost control it would cause trouble, and inspectors should keep their tempers under all circumstances. From the attitude of the inspectorJn the box: he considered that he was inclined to get excited. Under the circumstances, he would dismiss the case. The defendant was fined 10/ and costs for not having a driver's license.