WAS MOTOR CYCLIST RIDING ON FOOTPATH?

Hutt News, Volume 3, Issue 20, 9 October 1930, Page 11

WAS MOTOR CYCLIST RIDING ON FOOTPATH?

A CAEEFXJLLY DEFENDED

PEOSECUTION.

) A case, illustrating the need for the, of the greatest of care upon ■tine part of those prosecuting for alleged offences, was heard last week before Mr. T. B. McNeil, S.M., when Leon Gordon McDonald of 70 Pretoria Street, Lower Hutt, was charged with having ridden a motor cycle upon Pretoria Street footpath on the 17th July last. v" Mr. J. Fletcher (Chief Traffic Inspector), appeared for the Lower Hutt Borough Cor."ncil and Mr. C. It. Barrett appeared for the defenxla-it.. At the request of counsel for the defeuee tfce Court was cleard of all -.viT- tosses. Mr. Fletcher testified that at. about 7.2K) on tie evening ;Of the 17tii July lafct h.e, ae^ompani^pby Inspector Perv tebll, drove u^a_iSmeDonald's vesi.leiifie in Pretoria aiM that at 7.28 p.m a motor cycle'No;< 16-117, owned hy the defendant, was^ >odden.. out of the defendant '3 residence and along the footpath for a.distance of about 100 yards towards the > Heke; .Street intersection. Mt. Fletcher stated^tlSat •he had re*•'■•• iv•«d complaints about motor cyclists rid-' ing upon the: footpath and further complaints of noisy motor frequent-. ing the def andan 'tf place. In cross examination^by Mr. Barrett, Mr. Fletcher admitted;t3lat he and his fellow inspector had gone up to Pretoria street^ for th,e express purpose of anaking a ;;'■;'.eatc.h" and stated that their motor car was parked about 20 feet teethe. jeast of McDonald's traffic «atran'e'^.-:: : ;Mr: Barrett asked if the Injectors McDonald, as it was admitted that neither Mr. Fletcher aior Mfe^vPeiibal^co^ld identify the asotor cyclist WifoVwas accompanied by | & pillion rider. Mr. Fletcher stated that although he and Mr. Penhall followed McDonald at a distance of about two car lengths, to the Heke Street intersection they did not stop McDonald. Mt. BarxeJs-fWhy did you not stop Mr. Fletiel^r-hrjWe had something better to do. '-; •; Mt. BaTreti—What was it? Mt. Fletohe*-~li hasi nothing to do With, this cage. .' 1 ]Mr. Barrett—Answers my question; it feas everything to do with, tiiis case. Mr. Fletcher —-Better- game came j aiong in the form of a cyclistl riding -without a light. Mr. Barrett.—-As you did not know is was'/McDonald on the motor cycle, idMyci not think it more important to stop him and ascertain his identity? Mr. Fleteher^rNo, I did not. Mr. Barrett—Are you sure that it was the 17th j%i^ that you were out »Bter McDonald t * , Mr. Fletcher—Yes. Mr. Barrett—Do you remember sayiag to McDonald, when sac saw you after the receipt of the notice to call aaid denied the offence, 'Well, if it wasn't that night it, was another?'. - % iMr. Flet-eher—No, I did not say that. McDonald admitted the offence and «eied me to squash the case as he J ■wtrald lose his'cycle if he were prose<gnted. Mr. Barxett—Then how can you acwmnt for the fact that McD v onald will &cpear that he said no such thing and tSiat two other witnesses will testify that he wasn't out on the 17th July? Mr. Fletcher —They will not be toll Sag the truth. Mr. Barrett —You have sworn that you didn't stop McDonald .because you -wanted to catch a cyclist without a Sght. Could you not have stopped Me.* Donald and as you were in a car«aught the cyclist as well? x Mr. Fletcher—l so. ' Inspector Penhall gave evidence corroborative of Inspector Fletcher aoad , produced a note, book showing the dejails taken dowii in connection with %ac alleged offence. The only other .entry for the evening of the 17th July was one referring to a motor car "which bad been caught exceeding the speed Htrrit upon the Hutt Road prior to the Inspectors' visit to Pretoria.Street. ' Mr. Barrett-^You followed, the motor cvdw who ypu say was McDonald from M* p2aee to Heike. Street corner? Mr. Penhall^Yes. ' Mr. Batretl>^Y<xuoßrere following at a distance of aboat 20 yards Mr. Peniali—Yes. *

' Mr. Barrett —Did the motor cycle have a rear light? Mr. Penhall—l think so, but I will not swear to it. Mr. Barrett—You were out to catch McDonald, weren't you? Mr. Penhall—Yes; we had had a lot of complaints about motor-cyclists riding upon the footpath in Pretoria street. Mr. Barrett—Then you surely would have remembered McDonald (if the cyclist had (been he) riding without a rear light and have prosecuted him for it* M*. Penhall—Yes, I think so. Mr. Barrett—Mr. Inspector, why did you rot stop the motor cyclist to identify tie driver? Mi. Penhall—We don't usually stop them as it is a dangerous practice. Mr. Barrett—Was that the only reason why you didn't stop the motorcyclist? •■■■../ Mr. Penhall—No, the motor cycle, turned into Heke Street and there was a. etir coming up Pretoria Street. :.i Mr. Barrett—But this car was 'on your left, and under the regulations youl had the right of way? Mr. P« nhall—Yes.Mr. Barrett—Now, I don't want to taka an unfair advantage of any lapse of Eiuir.oTy on your paTt, what records have y »v' of the alleged offence? 2<l'. Pf-^iall (producing a note book) —ITere i? a record I made ofVfche facts. Mr. Barrett —When was this entry made? / " Mr. Pci-hall —Just after the happening cf the offence. Mr. Barrett —I see you caught a motor car for speeding on the Main Road before you caught McDonald? Mr. Pen&all—Yes. Mr. Barrett —Did you catch anyone else that evening for any other offence? Mr. Penhall —No, not as far as I remember. "' . Mr. Barrett—But you would have it in this "book wouldn't you? ' Mr. Penhall—No, not necessarily. Mr Fletcher may have prat it in his book. Mr. Barrett—Now I want to foe fair to you. Let me refresh your memory. Did you1 see at the corner of Heke and Pretoria streets, a cyclist, motorist or motor cyclist riding or driving without a light? , . Mr. Penhall—No. Mr; Barrett—Are you sure of t-hat? itr. Penhall—Yes. 'Mt., Barrett — 1£ there had been and you had not stopped the motor cyclist, whom you though was, MeD-onald, because there was another party riding or driving without a light, the facts ■would have 'been so associated with the charge against McDonald that you could not -have forgotten it—isn't that so? Mr. Penhall—-Yes. Mr. Barrett—You were not present when McDonald was supposed to have made some confession to Mr. Fletcher Mr. Penhall—No. In opening the defendant's case Mr. Barrett made the following remarks: — "' 'Although I realise that a prima facie case has been made out against McDonald upon the uncorroborated evidence of Mr. Fletcher that McDonald admitted the offence, I regret that I feel, impelled to say that either one side -or .the other is committing perjury. lam fully aware-of the responsibility f I am assuininglaß, upon the one hand I lam characterising the inspectors as I HaTs, aid uipoii the other I am conI demiting, not only the defandant and Mr. Leask,.'"'but also the defandant's father wW is a respectable retired business man. lam prepared however, to take the full responsibility (considering my instructions) and I feel sure that after Your Worship has heard the witnesses for the defence and observed their demeanour in the witness 'box, Your Worship will come to t!he conclusion that the proceedings' must be dismissed. : Mir. Barrett went on to refer to the glaring discrepancy in the evidence of the inspectors relative to the Heke Street intersection incident, that there was no reference in Inspector Penhall Js note book as. to any cyclist having been .©anight for riding without a light, and place of the facts, upon wMch he had. been instructed, before the court. The defendant, McDonald, gave evidence upon his own behalf that he had arrived home from work on the evening of the 17th July at about 6 p.m and was retiring to 'bed at about 7 pan when Leask called to see him for the purpose^ of effecting repairs to the head'laght of Least's cycle. When Leask

called, ho (McDonald) -was in his pyjamas and he changed into an old 'pair of panta and went outside to his father's garage which was at the rear of the house. He and Leask repaired the motor-cycle headlight and at about 8 p.m he and Leask proceeded to work" on the defendant's motor cycle. This repair work took about an.-hour and then Leask and McDonald -returned to the house where they remained until about 10 p.m* .McDonald siwore definitely that neither he nor his eyele was out of the garage from 6 p.m on the night of the alleged offen-ce until he left for work next morning. He also stated that as the tail-light had been i stolen from the motor cycle on the previous (Saturday and not replaced until i the 19th July he should have been ! charged with an additional offence if he had committed the offence alleged .against ..'him.. — In cross-examination McDonald denied", admitting the offence, but said he told Mr Fletcher in answer to a notice (as to the,-identity of the rirlet of his motor cycle at 7.29 p.m on the 17^ Jhily) that if he were prosecuted his father would take his motor cycle away from him. McDonald stated chat this , was pivre bluff" set up by him to save the bother of a prosecution. He also stated that when he told* the inspectoi* that he wasn 't out upon tie evening of the 17th July Mr Fletcher said, "Well, if it'wasn't the 17th, it was another night." . The next witness was Evelyn McDonald, the father of the /lefendant, who stated that her could identify the night by the fact that his wife had that day returned from a visit to Otaki and that the defendant was preparing to retire to bed when Leask - called I sometime about 7 p.m." McDonald, senior, in c*ross-examination admitted that the boy was not under his direct observation at the time of the f».;lged offence, |mt further stated that i: wiuia ihave been impossible for nis son to have left the premises on a motor cycle without his -hearing it. This witness also stated that the two boys returned ito the house from the garage at aibout i 9 p.m. ! Oswald Leask, a carpenter, was the next witness to be called and corroborated the evidence of the defendant in | its entirety and<-further stated that, as .he had crossed over a culvert to enter ! MeDonald's place, there was no necessity to ride a motor cycle along the 1 footpath. T3iis witness was submitted to a rigorous eross-examinatioii toy th« magistrate 'but he remained unshaken in his testimony. In closing the case Mr Barrett stated that he felt-sure that the Court must accept the evidence elucidated by the defene as it was givn by witnesses with credible demeanours, free from any contradictions, and subject (in Leask's case), to a rigorous cross examination by the Court itself. Mr. Barrett added that disastrous contradiction in the evidence for the prosecution, relative to tie failure to stop the motor-cyclist, whom, the Borough tried to identify as ; MeDonald, must be weighed with the rest of the evidence given by the inspectors and render it unreliable, and I con eluding fey saying that the only escape the parties had of a condemnation for perjury was that the inspectors had -, mistaken either the> date or tie numfber j of the offending cycle. The Magistrate stated that he would reserve his" decision until the next morning when he stated that he would dismiss the information as he thought it' was probaible that tie inspectors were honest in giving their evidence but that they had made a mistake. Mr. Baraett applied for costs against the Borough Council upon the grounds that the ease had been dismissed on its^ ineTits, and, that even if a mistake had been made by vthe prosecution (and it was not admittd by the defence) his client siould not be put to the inconvenience and expense of defending a mistake. Mr. McNeil said he Tvould make no order as to ;costs.

Nutshells are useful in helping to revive a fire, particularly the shells of Brazil nuts. The stones of plums, green gages, etc., may be used f^r: the same purpose and should. be dried and saved instead of being thrown away. Orange peel can also be used in. this way; -AH these may be kept in small ornamental bag; they are quite inodorous when. dry. Used matches can be used the same way.

years. All three accused were just ] over 17 years of a,ge. Reddish, was charged with ♦converting a motor-car, ■ dangerous driving, ■ driving without a license, and with committing a breach of his probationary licence by converting* a 'motor-ear. Ivilkolly was chaVged with converting1 a car and driving without a..licensee, and the other accused was charged with converting a car. Reddish arid Ivilkolly pleaded guilty, and the other, for whom Mr. Wattersbn appeared, not guilty. ■Senior-Sergeant E. J. McKelvey said that on Saturday afternoon the three youths visited a skating rink in Wellington after which they obtained drinls from two hotels. In the evening they took the car, and KSlkolly drove it to Petonc, where Reddish took control. In Kensington avenue he collided with, another car in the midst of a theatre crowd, damaging that vehicle to the extent of £15, and the converted car to the Extent of about. £4. The other igpnpb lxa'd been dropped before tie collision occurred. He "was practically only a passenger in the car. On behalf of this youth Mr Watter! son pleaded the influence of drink, and that the youth -was three years beKind normal development, and easily prevailed upon by Ms companions. ... Asked what he knew of Mr. Watterson's client, Senior Sergeant McKelvey "said that lately he had been knocking about with hoodlums in Petone, and was causing trouble at his home. His mother was an invalid, and she was worried about him. I ' -"I cannot allow this thing to go on ! without some form of punishment,'' said the magistrate. '-He will be admitted to" probation for 12 months." The magistrate thought it was a case for the suppression of the name. Kilkolly was stated to have given, a great deal of trouble, due to an unsatisfactory home life. ."I think he has some..good in him, '■' said Mr Goodwin, of the Child Welfare Department, '' and the department is prepared to take care of him^'^ . . *'I am afraid," said the magistrate, "I cannot adopt that method with aim. He has had many opportunities' since 1928. So, too; with Reddish. They want a stronger hsind on them than they have been used to. Kilkolly and Reddish will be committed to a' Borstal institute for a.term Dot exceeding two years.'' ,: <. LACKED PEBi&IO*. I£AN SRECTS BTJITJDING. SERIOUS VIJJW TATCF.N. 'A house of two rooms erected by Thomas f Slade in Beaumont Avenue, Lower Hutt j has given the Lower Hutt Borough Council a great deal of trouble. The last act may be said to have closed yesterday, when Slade was fined £2 stnd costs 11/- for building a house without a permit, and was convicted and'discharged for occupying the building without first obtaining a certificate. Aboxit three months ago the works committee tof the council refused a permit to build, on the grounds that the house was but a shack, and against all the principles of town-planning. Slade appealed to^the Town Planning Board,, which decided that the council was wrong- in refusing the permit. Testerday }s case was brought under the borough by-laws, the borough solicitor, Mr E. P. Bunny; pressing for a penalty, "not in any vindictive spirit, but in order that people may see that they must not build in contravention of the borough by-laws. " ■Mr Keesing appeared for Slade. "Before I plead," said Mr Keesing, "I want to saythis is a, case in which ; the borough withheld the issue of n permit wrongly. "'* ■ Mr. Bunny: I cannot allow; a false! statement like that to be made at this stage. This easo is brought under the by-laws where a breach has been committed. The magistrate: Does that not go to the root of the charge? .'■..■ Mr Bunny: Of course it does. "I made that statement." continued Mr Keesing, "because the borough might consent/to withdraw the case." Mr Bunny: No, never. ' ' "Well then my plea is an admission of ,the breach.*in each, case, sir," said Mr Epesirig amid laughter. After the borough inspector had given evidence that it was on April 11 he saw the building almost completed, and told the defendant of the council's decision; and the defendant had. given ,

evidence that he did not start building unt.il ACay, and that therefore the .mii apector was mistaken the magistrate said; "I accept the evidence of the*inspector that he did communicate the ■ council's decision to defendant." He thereupon imposed the penalties mentioned. . CIVIL CASES. | Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in the following civil cases* p—Commissioner of Taxes v. Edgar Allen, £38/0/8; Commissioner of Taxes v. F. W. Teagle, 15/6; Lower Hutt Borough Council v. C. Armstrong, £7/9/7; Lower Hutt Borough Council v. W-. T. Lapworth, £17/6/5; Lower Hutt Borough Council v. T. S. and A. M. Nicollo (sep. est.), £5/6/10: Lower Hutt Borough. Council v. G. Thompson. £6/3/5; Lower Htitt Borough Council v. H. R. and C. H. Taueher (sop. est.), £5/17/2,:' O. B. Cottrell v. G. A. Mtzma-urice, £23/14/9 j F. 2s r. R. Meadows v. Eric Hogg, £38/2/6; H. Y. Westbury v. v A. Forrester, £11/9/6. /'