PARKING PLACES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 46, 31 August 1928, Page 14

PARKING PLACES

BLOCKING OF ENTRANCES CITY COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY Tha fact that the City Council has absolute authority over its own streets was pointed out by Mr. J. 11. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court on Wednesday afternoon when ho was dealing 1 with a bylaw offence. The case was ■ one in which the City Council, through the Assistant City Solicitor (Mr. J. Lockic) proceeded against Jack Nelson lor a breach oil a parking bylaw, in that he had parked his motor-car in Courtenay -place in the "theatre" parking area between His Majesty's Theatre and the Terminus Hotel, opposite the entrance to the Balmoral, Private Hotel. The , bylaw was made in 1923 to apply to this locality, and, in pursuance of a special power reserve in the bylaw itself, to exteud to other parking places which might thereafter bo decided upon by the City, Council. Mr. P. H. Putnam, who appeared for the defendant, said that ho was instructed to defend the case in order to- , test tbo reasonableness of the bylaw, and to raise the defence that it was iuvalid on the ground of unreasonableness and void on the ground of uncertainty, lie contended that the bylaw provided that cars parked in that area between, the hours set out had to be kept clear of all entrances. He admitted the facts, but contended that the .bylaw was void for "uncertainty because the locality was insufficiently defined, and the word "opposite" rendered the bylaw uncertain; and tho requirement to keep clear of all entrances was unreasonable in that it .would-include every entrance such as pedestrian and vehicular entrances. He cited various authorities which guided the Court in determining as to reasonableness or unreasonableness of bylaws, and also as to the certainty of the intention. Mr. Salmon said that the authorities which guided tlie Court in determining whether a bylaw was reasonable or unreasonable were well s'ettlcd, and before it could be held that a bylaw was void or uncertain the Court must be.satisfied that it could not read the bylaw with certainty. That was not ■ the position in this case. It was right that a layman might have put the construction on tho bylaw that he was required to keep'clear only of vehicular entrances, but there was no justification for that construction, i It was possible for the Court to'read the bylaw with certainty. Kcgardingthe con- j tention that the bylaw was unreasonable, it had to be borne in mind that the City Council had absolute authority) over its own streets, and that the grant- j ' ing to particular people of theatre parking places was a special concession! granted by the council to the owners .of private cars, and that the City Council was entitled to put such reasonable restrictions upon that grant as it saw fit. The defendant was ordered to pay costs. '