MOTORING ON SKIPPERS ROAD.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 3717, 2 November 1926, Page 5

MOTORING ON SKIPPERS ROAD.

ALLEGED BREACH OF LAKE COUNTY BY-LAW.

At the last sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Queenstown, that hardy perennial, “Motoring on the Skippers Road,” again engaged the attention of the presiding S.M., Mr G. Cruickshank. An into resting feature of the casei, though not a new one, Avas the line of defence adopted, which was a plea of not guilty on the grounds of the alleged invalidity of the by-iliaw dealing with, traffic on the road in question. The County Inspector, R. J. Powell, proceeded against Ivan Paterson on a charge of driving a motor car on the Skippers road on 11th May, 1926, contrary to the provisions of the Lake County by-law No. 13.

Mr W. A. Harlow (Clyde) conducted the case for the prosecution and Mr Robt. Gilkison, jun., appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty 1 R. J, Powell, motor inspector for the Lake County Council, stated in evidence that on the date in question he was driving on the Skippers road with tire Inspector of the Public Works Department at about. 10.30 a.m., and when near the top- of the Saddle he saw a oar coining. He waited at Long Gully for the car to come by, and when it- did lie took the number.' —By Mr Gilkison: In 1918, by special resolution, the. Council opened .the road to motor traffic between the hours of 7 p.jm. and 8 (dm. The Patersons had been the principal users of the road with motors and they had generally kept to the hours specified. —In answer to- a further question put by Counsel witness said he considered it reasonable that the road should he open to motor traffic during these hours. Recently the hours were' further extended by resolution- of the Council, the time during which motor traffic might use the road being from 4.30 .p.ra. to 9 a.m, Mr Gilkison, for defendant, direotted His Worship’s attention to the case Blythe v. Wheeler as it appeared in the N.,Z. Law Reports, 192-5. Tins was an appeal from a decision of a Stipendiary Magistrate- -.sitting 1 at Auckland. An information charged the appellant with a breach of a- bylaw which provided that no person should drive a motor-cycle or motor car in or upon, certain named streets within the borough of Ta.kapu.ua at a speed exceeding 20 miles per hour The appellant, was convicted by a Magistrate for a breach of this bylaw. The evidence showed that the borough officials considered a strict enforcement of'this regulation would he unreasonable, and that they had in the past refrained from pro'seouiting so long as- the speed had mot exceeded 30 miles per hour. On. these, facts the Supreme Court, on appeal, held that the by-law was unreasonable.,-and therefore invalid.

Proceeding, Mr Gilkison said that, as pointed out by him _ in the last case brought under this by-law, the Council had passed a resolution opening the road to motor traffic during certain hours, and recently they had made a further concession in the hours. 'Plie first point he wished to stress was that the Council had' no power to alter their by-laws by a resolution, hence, the said by-law stood at the time of the alleged breach exactly as it. was widen it was framed fn Idl'd 1 At the hearing against J. Dagig counsel had taken the view

that by passing the resolution referred to the Council had treated the bylaw as being unreasonable. Strange to say, in, the Auckland Supreme Court, a week later the Chief .Justice (Sir Robert Stout) had quashed the conviction of Blythe on the grounds fiat the Takapuma Council itself had obviously treated the by-law as being unreasonable in that it decided' not to prosecute motorists driving less than, 30 miles an hour, even though the by-law limited the speed to 20 miles. In the case of the Lake County Council they framed a by-law in 1012 prohibiting motor traffic on the Skippers no-ad, but since that time the Council has twice passed resolutions making concessions to motorists in that they were permitted bo use the road during certain hours. This clearly pointed to the Council's having considered the by-,law to bo urn reasonable.

His Worship said he did not think the Auckland case was altogether in point. In the case before- the Court the Council opened the road at night to motorists in order to- meet the convenience, of settlers. Apparently the Council took the vie,w that to allow cars on the road in the daytime,-when horses were being used on the- road might be dangerous. It was unlikely horses would be used on the mad at. night. Mr Harlow, for the prosecution, drew His Worship's attention to Mr Justice Reed's decision in re- amotion to- quash, a by-law of the Auckland City Council (N.Z. Law Reports, 1925)

excluding omnibuses at all times from .a certain part of the City, on the .ground that the by-law was ultra vires and unreasonable. Tine by-law purported to fix the routes to be- followed by. omnibuses plying* from, in, or near Queen St. to various bomnind, and provided for them running to a fixed time-table submitted by theAuckland Omnibus Proprietors’ Association and approved of by the Council’s Inspector; it also- provided that no person should drive or conduct any omnibus in, through, or along “that part of Queen St, between Customs and Wellesiltey Sts.” In reviewing the case Air Justice Reed found that there was congestion in the area slated and that .the by-law aimed -at relieving this. But "he found that this congestion was only existent during Working' hours and that after 6.J0 p-.ra, and on Sundays and on. certain holidays when commercial vehicles were not in use there was no reason why the exclusion should then apply. His Honor thought, therefore,, that the by law should be- amended in the. direction of permitting the use- of Queen St. on these, -occasions. But he .never said he considered the- by-law unreasonable. He adjourned the; motion for further consideration and ordered that the City Council: submit an amendment in the direction indicated.

Council (Mr Harlow) submitted that the same xounsei ought to be followed 1 ' by His Worship in. the by-law case before. the court Continuing, Mr Harlow considered there- was no. admission by the Lake County Council that the by-law was uve.a?xv..a,hk\ and that the c-o-'A'skteved opinion of the Council was entitled. to- be regarded by the Court. It was probable that the Council would amend the. by-law to embody the. re,-t solutions regarding" the hours; in fact, hie had a,heady been instructed to do this.

His Worship saild that if this were dlone the; by-law would b© quite. reasonable. But as* the by-law stood at

present motors- were prohibited from being! on the road might or day. The Council could not amend the by-law by resolution, and just tell the Inspector mot to prosecute if motors were on the road during the hours set out in. the resolutions.

Counsel for the prosecution consider-

ed'that.it was a very serious thing to hlold the by-law of a Council unreasonable and quash it. Horse and vehicular traffic must be protected. Ho thought the omnibus proprietors’ case* one much like that before this Court. — —His Worship: The Supreme- Court lias power to- order an amendment of by-laws, but I cannot do that. —Mr Harlow reminded the Bench of the decision already given by His Worship in, a similar Skippers- road case On that and other occasions- the by-law was held to he reasonable.

Mr Gilki'-on: Our point is that if the by-law is held to (bet valid the Council has permitted motor traffic and is therefore liable to prosecution itself in, that it has permitted such traffic.

His Worship said that the by-law might be considered (reasonable as it stood but the trouble was that the Lake County Council had started tinkering' with it. He would reserve Ms decision.