QUESTION OF AUTHORITY

Evening Star, Issue 23324, 21 July 1939, Page 8

QUESTION OF AUTHORITY

CITY TRAFFIC INSPECTOR’S POWERS CHARGES AGAINST MOTORIST During the adjourned hearing in the Police Court to-day of charges against Thomas Landrcth of being an unlicensed motor driver and of refusing to give information to a traffic inspector. Mr .1. C. Robertson, who conducted tho prosecution, said that after looking into the position he was satisfied that a city traffic inspector’s powers were confined to the city boundary, a contention that the Alifhistrato said he agreed with from his cursory examination of the matter. Charges against Angus Alfred Mackay of refusing to give information to the traffic inspector and of assisting in the commission of an offence were held over until tho case against Landreth was completed. Mr J. C. Robertson conducted the prosecution, Mr W. J. Meade appeared. for Landrcth, and Mr J. G. Warrington represented Mankay. Mr Robertson said that tho case had been adjourned to enable him to look into tho position as to tho extent of n city traffic inspector’s powers beyond tho city’s boundary. Air Robertson said that it seemed that his powers were confined to the city boundary. He agreed with that, and the eases would now have to be fought on the facts. They contended that the car was stopped inside the city boundary. The magistrate (Air H. W. Bundle) s/ud that he agreed that the authority of a city traffic inspector stopped at the city boundary. That seemed clear from his cursory examination of the matter. Air Robertson said that a rather peculiar position had arisen. There was a boundary post there, but the boundary line at Higbcliff was in the centre of the road, and when the car was stopped it was contended that it was within the city limits. Evidence was given by Charles Barnett Stephenson, a surveyor employed by the City Council, who gave details as to tho exact location of the city boundary in relation to the spot where the alleged offence took place. Evidence was given by Traffic Inspector Arthur and Chief Traffic inspector Avery as to the position of the cars, and Mr Meade said that the position resolved itself into whether or not Alackay’s ear was in tho city boundary. According to Inspector Avery, it seemed to he a matter of inches. It was submitted that the inspectors on that particular night had no reason to mark tho positions of the cars and their evidence must be based on their recollection of what took place on a night a few weeks ago. It had been submitted that the inspector definitely had authority to secure information, but to support this, it had to be established that tho car was inside the city boundary, and ho contended this had not been clone.

The Magistrate held that a prima facie case had been established on the evidence of the inspectors, which was that the truck was in such a position that it had to be driven round Mackay’s car and had to he turned to the right at the city boundary. Certainly it was well pastille direction post which the ordinary individual would take as tho boundary to the city. Angus Alfred Mackay was giving evidence for the defence when the luncheon adjournment was taken.