CLOSING OF ELTHAM STREET

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 1 February 1933, Page 10

CLOSING OF ELTHAM STREET

PROVISION ON NEW YEAR’S EVE. i BOROUGH COUNCILLOR. SUED. A point in borough management and the customs concerning New Year’s Elve traffic was raised in a ease at Elthain yesterday when a charge was brought against George W Peebles for driving a motor-car over portion of Bridge Street when such street was stopped for traffic. Mr. J. L. Weir, who appeared for the Eltham Borough Council said that under the Act the council had power to close a street when it. was considered desirable temporarily to divert traffic and that a penalty would be incurred through default. He specified that the section of street referred to was between High and York Streets and that the diversion would take only two minutes. Defendant, had driven up to the “prohibited area’’ and a borough official stopped him. He refused to stay and drove up. the closed street. The Borough Council wished to prove that it had power to close a street on such an occasion. The borough inspector (Mr. A. E. Lethbridge) gave evidence of receiving instructions from the Mayor to close the section of Bridge Street from 9 p.m. to midnight in order to allow the street to he used for dancing. This had been announced in a paragraph in the Press. The Mayor (Mr. I. J. Bridger) was j cross-examined by Mr. A. Chrystal, who appeared for defendant. Mr. Bridger said he had instructed the inspector to close the street and to appoint assistants on point duty. It had been customary for live years to j do this on New Year’s Eve. He had no special request from the townspeople, but had been told dancing and band playing would take place as j usual. The Progress Committee had j not advertised this, but approved of it. j He admitted that no advertisement I was made, hut only a “local” paragraph was inserted in the. Press. There was no official notification except to the inspector. . In reply to a question the Mayor ad-[ mitted that the dancing might he a temporary breach of the by-laws, hut he would not admit that he gave, the inspector orders to authorise such n breach. He merely closed the street temporarily. Mr. Chrystal: Mr. Peebles was obstructed in his right to drive along the/ street. The Mayor: Just as everyone else was treated, hut there was no intention to stop foot traffic. The inspector had discretionary power. In reply to Mr. Weir, the Mayer said he had, as in former years, mj structed the inspector to close the street and to get assistants, because he could not have done the work by himself. He had closed the street to vehicular traffic, allowing pedestrians, to go through. Defendant was a member of the council and had acquiesced previously without complaint m the closing of the street. Herbert A. Mehrtens said he had acted as traffic officer at the corner of York Street and had stopped defendant when he was approaching, signalling him to go round York Street. Defend* ant, after an argument with linn had driven along Bridge Street to his shop •In replv to Mr. Chrystal, witness denied that* defendant had told him liewished to get his camping gear, adding that he said he “would not weal out liis gears for any council.” Defendant had told him to “get out ot the bally road.” Mr. Chrystal, for the defence, said an interesting point of law was involved He maintained that the coun cil had not any right to stop any clasi of traffic from using the street. Ihe case might possibly have far-reacliinc effects. “We challenge the Mayor’s right to close the street,” he continued. Counsel said that Peebles affirmed that the first he knew of the closing of the street was when lie was told bv the assistant inspector. Counsel considered that- the Mayor’s claim of a right to stop certain traffic was an. absurdity, and the right must be ( vested in the council. In times o* f emergency ail traffic could be .stopped | by the Mayor, hut not vehicular trnffi.il anv more than pedestrians. . Mr. Weir said it might he that de-j fondant did not know of the closing of the street, but the man on duty had told him. It was ridiculous to say there had been a breach of the bylaws. because these were made for the o-ood government of the town. " The magistrate said the defence could not stand, because the Mayor had power under the Act to stop traffic and had exercised that right. Mr. Chrystal said that the Mayor had not given a direct answer as to the instructions given by him in regard to the closing of the street. • The magistrate added that apparently defendant had not intended in the first place to test the law on the subject. He ordered defendant to pay the costs 10s and solicitor’s fee 21s. Oil a similar charge Charles Cooper, who did not appear, was ordered to pay costs 10s.