CLOSING OF STREET

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 144, 3 June 1936, Page 9

CLOSING OF STREET

Borough Council’s Action Upheld

MAGISTRATE’S RULING

The action of the Hastings Borough Council in debarring vehicular traffic in Heretaunga street on special occasions, such as Christmas Eve, New Year’s Evo and the eve of Good Friday, which was challenged during the recent hearing of a case at tho Hastings Magistrate’s Court, was completely upheld in the reserved decision delivered by Mr J. Miller, S.M., this morning in connection with the charge of plying a taxi for hire in Heretaunga street during prohibited hours against Frederick Charles Newrick.

The defendant was represented by Mr 0. Puff, who at the original hearing defended the case upon the merits and upon points of law, Referring to the statement that tho traffic inspector had given extended permission to use Heretaunga street during the prohibited hours, His Worship said that he was satisfied that Inspector Crawford gave no such extended permission. No doubt taxidrivers were placed at a disadvantage by such a prohibition, but that was a matter for the council to consider in coming to a decision. Once the decision was made covering all vehicular traffic, it was of the utmost importance that no exemption should be made. "In our busy public town streets a motor-debarred street is of such rare experience to pedestrians that they would naturally use the street with care-free minds,” said His Worship, "There being no necessity for pedestrians to be ever on the alert, no matter how careful the unexpected motorist is, the latter, in avoiding one pedestrian is likely to hit another. The danger is so obvious that it is unlikely that the inspector would have given such latitude, nor is it likely that any reasonably-minded taxi-driver would have misunderstood the instruction. I therefore do not uphold the defence on I he merits ” THE LEGAL SIDE. Referring to the legal argument, His Worship said that Mr Duff contended that tho word " traffic" meant all traffic including foot traffic, and that the council must forbid all traffic ns there was no power to forbid part of the traffic. Mr Duff submlttea no authority laying it down that there is no power for the use of only part of u power when that only was necessary. “It appears to me that if only part of tho traffic offends, to include tho whole the doctrine of ultra vires would apply,” said His Worship. "On the other hand, to apply to only part of the traffic when only that part of the traffic offends, is a proper consideration of tho object of the provision and is theretore a construction within the canons of construction.

"To include all traffic would not only be paying no attention to tho object of the provision, but in many instances would render the provision a nullity and would in some cases debar the council from doing urgent work. Ona could give many examples,” added His Worship. "It is necessary to mention only one. To perform certain works in a street without footpaths may he impossible because of vehicular traffic. To exclude all traffic would lead to the isolation of the residents in their homes or the exelusion of their access.”

DEFENDANT’S PENALTY. klr Miller went on to say that Mr Duff also submitted that the rule "cjusdem generis” applied. He contended that the meaning of the word "reason” referred to in the latter part of the section is to be construed from the preceding language. "In the first place, in my opinion, the rule does not apply,” said His Worship, "because this is not a ease of general words following specified words. Power is given to close on account of two separate and dissociated reasons. This is following by a general power to close.” His Worship convicted the defendant and ordered him to pay costs amounting to £4 1/-, but when informed that this would affect the defendant’s license, His Worship dismissed the information under section 72 of the Act and ordered the defendant to pay the costs mentioned.