LIGHT ON MOTOR-CAR

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 53, 11 September 1928, Page 3

LIGHT ON MOTOR-CAR

PROSECUTION FAILS MAGISTRATE'S SUGGESTION (Special to "The Evening Post.") PALMERSTON NORTH, This Day. A case of some interest to motorists -was heard before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Palmerston North Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. The case arose out of the new Motor Vehicle Regulations, 1928, the section under which the information was laid reading as follows:—Every lamp attached to, or used in connection with, any motor-vehicle, shall be so constructed that the beam of light therefrom shall be of a substantially white colour. No beam with a. reddish tint shall be deemed to comply with this requirement, with the exception of the tail-light attached to the rear of the vehicle. The defendant was F. Brownjohn, who was charged with driving a motor vehicle provided with a red light attached otherwise than to the rear of the ear. The device produced in court was a red arrow head inside a white circle, the whole being lit up with an electric bulb in the centre of the indicator. The device' is worked automatically from the steering wheel, and is used to indicate the direction in which the car is about to turn. Defendant was represented by Mr. Hoggard, or Wellington, and pleaded not guilty. P. G. Patton, traffic manager, stated that on 18th August he had noticed a car driven by defendant turning anj interstion into Rangitikei street. The car had shown a red light attached to an automatic signalling device, which indicated the direction in which the vehicle was proceeding. The device had been fixed to the side of the car near the front. To Mr. Hoggai-d, witness stated that as far as he knew the red paint was not scraped off the attachment before putting it ou a car. He was certain that the red paint' had not been taken off the device on Brownjohn's car. He was not aware that this signalling device was generally used in many municipalities or that the I'.W.D. had raised no objection to its use. Mr. Hoggard: "Was it merely a coincidence that it happened to be Mr. Brownjohn's car which you noticed?" Witness: "I did not know whose car it was at the time." Mr. Hoggard: "A peculiar thing that you picked on the ageut for these devices in Pahuerston .North. Another, coincidence?" Witness: "Yes." Mr. Hoggard: "Hove you not threatened to sue Mr. Brown John for slander?" Witness: "What has that got to do with the case?" Mr. Hoggard: "Is it not a fact that there has been trouble between yourself and Mr. Brownjohn? Has he not accused you of impropriety in connection with borough contracts?" The Bench: "That has nothing whatever to do with the case, Mr. Hoggard." P. A. Phelan, traffic inspector, stated that he had been shown the car two days later by Mr. Brownjohn, who had told him that he had scraped the red paint off the front of the device. Mr. Hoggard submitted that the device did not constitute a lamp, either in the ordinary sense of the term or as set out in the regulations. The Bench: "It is just as much a light as a tail light." Mr. Hoggard pointed out that it was important for his client to avoid a conviction, as this would be turned to advantage by their trade rivals.; He submitted the matter was trivial. Had his principals received any intimation that the device was objected to, they would have substituted some point other than red, in order to be on the safe side. In any case, he submitted that the device could, not possibly be confused with a tail light, owing to the fact that it did not throw a beam of light, while it was only showing for the period during which the car was turning an intersection. At this stage argument developed between Mr. Hoggard and the Bench as to whether a light could show without a beam. Mr. Hoggard submitted that the device threw no beam, and therefore could not come within the regulations. He submitted that, the case should be dismissed, either on the ground that the device did not constitute a lamp or on the ground that the whole matter was trivial. His Worship stated that devices such as that before them were used in England. He could not see any great objection to the indicator himself. Mr. F. H. Cooke (borough solicitor) pointed out that the inspector had informed the agents that the device *as not permisible. If the case were dismissed, it would' be possible for red lights to be shown on the front of ears, which was contrary to the Motor Vehicles Regulations. Mr,.. Hoggard suggested that his Worship dismiss the case as trivial without prejudice. ' The Bench adopted this suggestion, with the recommendation that the principals controlling the device incorporate some colour other than red in the indicatory.