OFF-SIDE.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 2714, 23 June 1925, Page 5

OFF-SIDE.

“TRYING TO GET ONE BACK ON ME.” After the elapse of a month, fine’s mauory of a certain incident is inclined to become faulty. Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M.. said so at the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday, and remarked on the practice of the Borough Council in by-law cases. The case was one wherein J. M. Johnston was charged with driving a motor-car on tho wrong side of the road. Mr. F. H. Cooke appeared for tho Borough Council and Mr. J. A. Grant for the defendant. F. A. Phelan, assistant traffic inspector, gave evidence in support of tho charge. Defendant, he said, left the car on the wrong side outside the station, and went inside. To Mr. Grant, witness said that ho had caught defendant breaking the by-laws dozens of times. Witness had never before laid an information, or made any record of it. It was for a private reason—a quarrel, which took 'place at the Awapuni race-course. Witness did not warn defendant at the time, as defendant came out and drove away. Mr, Stout: Why did you not put up your hand and stop him? Witness: I was on the other side of the road. Defendant, he said, was travelling at 15 miles an hour. Mr. Stout: He must have accelerated very quickly. It would not have taken two seconds to have stepped out into the road. Evidence was given by William Tingey, taxi-driver, who stated that he saw defendant stop, leave his car, and enter the station, but it was at a different entrance to that mentioned by Phelan. Mr. Grant explained that although the offence was allegedly committed on April 30. the summons was not delivered until May 27. Ho submitted that by bringing sip this charge, Phelan was "trying to get even’’ with [defendant. Phelan did not even go over to defendant and warn him of the prosecution that would ensue. Mr. Stout; Perhaps he was afraid of tackling defendant. F. A. Phelan (sotto voice): I was. Mr. Grant: Then he could have sent over a note.

Mr. Cooke: Why should he? I cannot understand all this. Mr. Grant stated that a busy business man could not be expected a month after an alleged incident to remember what took place on that date. Mr. Stout: An impossibility. I certainly think that tho practice followed by the police—to serve a summons a few days afterward —is tho correct procedure. In continuing, Mr. Grant said that it was not the way to protect the public. Mr. Stout: It is not a case of that Nothing you say can excuse a deliberate breach. Defendant gave evidence, and stated that he was perfectly satisfied in mind that ho had not committed the offcnct alleged. The matter, he said, was the outcome of what took place at Christmas. "This man Phelan is trying to get one back on me.’’ He had driven a car for 20 years, and had never before been prosecuted for breaking bylaws. Mr. Cooke: You are very careful not to break the by-laws?—l am. Mr. Cooke; Then how is it that your car is at the present time standing outside the Courthouse on the wrong side on the road? Witness: Oh. I am not sufficiently up in the by-laws. Mr. Stout; That’s a new one, Mr. Johnston! Witness: I offered to buy some bylaws, but I couldn’t got a copy. Defendant was fined 10/- and costs 7/-. In imposing the fine, Mr. Stout remarked that in small cases like this, dfeendant should be given notice of prosecution. One could not remember what had taken place such a long time after.