LOITERING IN THE STREETS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8143, 15 December 1904, Page 2

LOITERING IN THE STREETS.

AN AUCKLAND BY-LAW QUASHED

NOTICE OF APPEAL GIVEN. / [PBBSS ASSOCIATION.] \ AUCKLAND, December 12. At the Supreme Court to-day, Mr Juttice Edwards gave judgment on an application by John Davidson for judicial definition by a by-law of the Auckland City Council, as follows : — "No person shall loiter, stand, or remain in or upon any street, private street, footpath, or footway, or use the same for such time, or in such a manner as shall have the effect of obstructing or disturbing the free use there* of, or access to any house or building in or near thereof." The grounds upon which it was sought to quash this by-law were (1) That it is repugnant to the Police Offences Act, 1864; (2) that it is uncertain; and (3) that it is not reasonable. His Honor concluded as follows : — "The by-law under consideration is good if it can he justified as being fairly for the good rule and government of the borough m any respect, or as being a reasonable regulation for the use of the streets." The first three prohibitions, continued his Honor, were absolute. If this by-law were good, the first offence created by the by-law was committed if any person was alow in moving along any street in any part of the city at an early hour of the day. Any person who in the early hours of the morning and in a residential part of the city, moved slowly up and down any street was an offender and liable to a fine not exceeding £20, although there was not another person in the same street. Under the second offence created by the by-law a person was an offender who stood in a street waiting for a train or talking to a friend, or looking into a shop window, even though he in no way obstructed traffic or caused inconvenionce or annoyance to others. It was difficult to say what the third class of offence was intended to cover. It was forbidedn to remain in or upon any street, etc. A person in a sense remained in Queen street who walked from one end to the other and then turned and walked back again to his starting point. No doubt such results were not intended by the City Council. It was probably thought that the qualification which was placed upon the fourth offence mentioned in the by-law — namely, that the act mentioned was only forbidden if it had the effect of obstructing or disturbing the free use of some street-^applied to all acts forbid* den by this by-law, but upon the grammatical construction of the words used, it was plain that this was not so. The bylaw must, therfore, be quashed, vrith costs (£5), and necessary disbursements. Notice of appeal was given.