JUDICIAL INCONSISTENCY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12423, 12 February 1901, Page 7

JUDICIAL INCONSISTENCY.

• TO THE EDITOR. Sir,-—A> few days ago I had the misfortune to be fined 27s for riding a bicycle at a slow pace along one of the footpaths on that portion of the Riecarton Road which divides the North from the South Park. This road at its best is always rough and dusty, and at the present, time is in a particularly bad condition. Moreoever, there are no dwellings on either side of the road, and consequently I consider my action in taking to the footpath under the circumstances I have mentioned, was excusable. In the opinion of the presiding justices, however, my offence, judged by the standard of punishments imposed by therm in other cases, was equally as heinous (vide the daily newspapers) as that of a man who assaults his wife or who purloins his, neighbours goods. In aggravated cases, such'as scorching along the footpaths to the danger of life and limb, a severe punishment is no doubt justifiable, but surely our Justices may be expected to use a little discrimination in dealing with the cases brought before them, and to exercise a reasonable amount of intelligence and common sense in fitting thei punishment to the crime.—l am, etc., LADI CYCLIST.