“PURE SURPLUSAGE”

Evening Star, Issue 22032, 18 May 1935, Page 12

“PURE SURPLUSAGE”

MOTOR REGULATION ATTACKED DOUBTS OF VALIDITY EXPRESSED “I agyee that we have a wonderful lot of regulations,” said Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday afternoon after Mr E. «L •Anderson had attacked the validity of a motor regulation and described it as pure surplusage. ■ . The case was one of great interest to motorists, as a car driver, John Leslie MTndoe, was charged, although he had been struck in the rear by an overtaking motor cycle. MTndoe, for whom Mr Anderson appeared successfully, pleaded not guilty to failing to keep as far as practicable to the' left of the centre line of the road. Arising also out of the accident Allan Wood Davie (Mr C. A. Hamer) was charged with negligently driving a motor cycle. Senior-sergeant Packer said that on Sunday, February 10, the defendant was driving along Forbury road towards Macandrew road. As he reached the corner of the latter street he bored across the road, and Davie, who was rioling behind him, ran into his car. Davie, in evidence, stated that between 12.40 and 1 p.m. on the dav in question he was driving along Forbury road towards town. He saw a small car in front of him, travelling on its correct side of the road. , He sounded his horn, but as he did so the car veered to the right, and witness, not knowing which way it was going, moved in towards the left with the intention of overtaking it. As he did so, however, the car veered to-, wards the left again, and witness s cycle struck it on the rear. When wit- ' ness attempted to overtake the car it was travelling between the gutter and the left-hand set of rails, but after the collision its rear right wheel was resting on the far away rail of the righthand set of tram, rails. MTndoe gave no indication of his intention to turn.

To Mr Anderson: He was positive he had sounded his horn. Evidence was given by Constable Schruffer, who produced measurements taken at the scene of the accident. Mr Anderson submitted that the regulation under which the defendant. MTndoe, was charged was bad, and asked for dismissal of the information. The regulation was invalid, he com tended, and repugnant to the rule of the road laid down by the Public Works Act, 1928, for all motor traffic in New Zealand, which imposed a penalty on the motorist who did not keep to the left when meeting another vehicle, to the right when passing, and leave a reasonable amount of room, for the -other vehicle. The regulation, moreover, was unreasonable, in that it put all fast-moving motor traffic right over on to the left-hand side of a highway, and left the slow-moving vehicles in the centre. It was also uncertain in that it did not determine who was to ascertain the standard of practicability. The rule was pure surplusage and not necessary at all. His Worship: I agree that we have a wonderful lot of regulations. Mr Anderson went on to contend that his client had taken the usual and the safest route, and in the circumstances the charge against him could not lie. < Mr Hamer maintained that Davie had adopted every possible precaution to avoid an accident, and it had not been shown that he was guiltv of the breach of a regulation providing for public safety. The magistrate said that the evidence was quite insufficient to support the charge against MTndoe,, which would therefore be dismissed. . There _ was, however, some evidence of negligence on his part, in that he had altered his position on the road materially without making sure that all was clear behind liim. He would, at the present time, express no considered, opinion against the regulation, but he was by no means i satisfied that it was valid. j With regard to the j the evidence showed clearly that* ho did j not have his cycle under proper control, i and there was no doubt that he war j guilty of negligence. In view of possible proceedings between the parties, 1

however, the charge would be altered to one of speeding, and he would b« convicted and ordered to pay witnessesexpenses (£1 2s) and costs (16s).