STRONG CRITICISM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 220, 15 August 1927, Page 7

STRONG CRITICISM.

FOR TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT’S METHODS. IN SENDING OUT NOTICES OF PROSECUTION. “The methods of the traffic department in this case cannot bo uphold or supported in any way,” stated Mr Graham, of Feilding, in defending a client who was charged before Messrs W. F. Durward and D. J. Lovelock, J.P.’s, at the Police Court this morning with having exceeded the borough speed limit at tho intersection of Rangitikei and Featherston Streets . “The offence,” he proceeded, “is alleged to have taken place on June 9, and it was not until July 10 that defendant received any notification that he was to be prosecuted, and then ho was told that the offence had allegedly taken place at tho intersection of Rangitikci and Cuba Streets, whereas we aro now charged with an offence at another intersection. Straight away defendant wrote to the traffic department asking' for particu-

lars and was told over two weeks later that the offence with which he would be charged would be breaking a bylaw limiting speed to ten miles per hour. Now he is charged with travelling in excess of eight mile 3 per hour. "The position,” continued counsel, ‘’is monstrous, and it is time that the traffic department amended its methods. In Wellington this practice would not be tolerated, a man gets notice straight away. Not only has tho traffic department delayed in giving us information, but it has given us wrong information. My client, because of the lapse of time in getting notice from the department, can’t remember whether he was exceeding eight miles per hour or not and consequently has no chance of defending the prosecution If you dismiss the information, it should be the means of accelerating the machinery of tho traffic departPrior to counsel’s remarks evidence ivas given by Traffic Inspector Phelan that ho had ."jeon defendant, Keith JVI. Little, drive over the intersection of Rangitikei and Featherston Streets at a speed of 25 miles per hour. "The court,” stated tho Bench, is satisfied that an offence was committed, but, in view of the fact that the traffic department got things mixed up, defendant will be ordered to pay costs only. We think that the inspectors should endeavour to get tlreir notices out earlier, for otherwise it is difficult for motorists to -remember.”