AN EXPLANATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLII, Issue 4303, 26 November 1874, Page 3

AN EXPLANATION.

TO THE EDITOE 03P THE LYTTELTON TIMES. SiE,-f-You will see by the police report, that I was summoned smd fined 10s and costs, 4s, for obstructing the footpath in London street, Lyttelton. Not being the owner of E. E. Terry’s establishment, I could have disputed the summons, but did not wish to raise a quirk. According to the policeman’s statement, the case of goods had goods on it, and was four feet clear of the shop. Now, in lookinto Walker, “ to .obstruct, v.a., to hinder, to bar the approaoh ” is a crime I was charged with. Now, as I had left a space of four feet, I did not cause mucfaobßtrnotion. The same day I had my. case out for a short time ; nearly opposite to me were two cases piled up with goods which had been there three er four hours longer than my unfortunate' case, and which appear not to have been an obstruction, as the owner was not summoned. I admire order, and police are necessaiy, but it is not their duty to tyrannise over one man and let another go free, and the sooner some of them are removed from Lyttelton the less favouritism will be shown, and the better for Your obedient servant, JNO. B. DRAKE. N.B.—Why don’t they letter the police on their collars ? Lyttelton, Nov. 24.