POLICE & “PROCESSION”

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 February 1927, Page 5

POLICE & “PROCESSION”

CHCH. CASE DISMISSED. (Special to "Star.”) CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 25. A by-law, which is described as an “archaic relic of the old days.” . was criticised severely at the Magistrate’s Court, this morning. The question in dispute wag what constituted a procession. Mr E. D. Mosley S.M., confessed that he did not know what the City. Council by-law prohibiting processions meant. „ . . ■. The whole matter was considered during the hearing of cases, which John Grant Mackie Junr./ Norman March, Ivan G. Parker, Frank Rivier, and George E. Simpson, were charged with taking part in a procession of vehicles passing along Colombo Street, between Kilmore and St. Asaph Streets, without having obtained the written consent of the Mayor or some person authorised by him. The information was laid under Section 63, Christchurch City Council bylaws No. 14.

Mr E. W. White said he considered that, there" had been no procession. There was a provision in the by-laws for cars to be permitted to carry advertising matter. Mackie had permits for his cars. He told the City Council what he intended doing with the cars. The word “procession” had not been defined in the by-law.

Sergeant J. F. McNamara said (he had interviewed the four defendants. He read statements from one who stated that the cars had been driven round the city. He said the cars had been held up by the constable on point duty. • To Mr White: He thought the numbers of the cars, and the way they were driven, constituted a procession. Constable Dalzell, who was on point duty in Cashel Street, said that the five cars were close together. They passed him several times. Mr White said the by-law concerning processions obviously contemplated pre-arranged ceremonial procession, but the by-law did not state that. In effect, the by-law forbade people joining together in going to a fire. That was an unwarrantable infringement of the people’s rights. The by-law was as relic of the days before constables on point duty. The trouble had been caused through the inefficiency of the constable on point duty. It looked as if the police persisted in the case because of the public cry against the traffic muddle that had been caused. Leslie Hardie, Chief City Inspector, said that when permits were issued to Mackie, it was known he intended to have the run. Permits for such runs had been given for thirteen years past. In the opinion of witness, the by-law fulfilled no purpose. In reply to a question from the Magistrate, witness said the permit would not be given if there was danger of the vehicles impeding traffic. “It seems to me a very trivial matter, to bring before the court,” said Mr Mosley at the conclusion of the cases. “I do not see why the police should have brought the actions under a local by-law, when the civic authorities are not against it. It seems to me that the police should not have taken action, unless at the instigation of the civic authorities. Three vehicles going in the same direction for the same purpose might constitute a procession but 1 am honestly uncertain what th by-law means by “procession,” whether it is motor or other vehicles, or pedestrians! 1 cannot say, so the charges are dismissed.”