MAGISTRATES DIFFER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 19 December 1935, Page 9

MAGISTRATES DIFFER

THE “OFF-SIDE” RULE INTERESTING BLENHEIM CASE REGULATION UPHELD An important sequel was provided to a prosecution for a breach of the “offside” rule in the Blenheim Magistrate s Court yesterday morning when Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., delivered a reserved decision of opposite effect to an earlier decision by Mr Stilwell, S.M., in an identical Wellington case. “I regret that I am at variance with the other magistrate as it leaves the matter in an unsatisfactory position,” observed Mr Maunsell (reports the “Express’ ). The case, which was heard about a month ago, was one in which John O’Leary was charged on the information of Traffic-Inspector Laird with failing to give way to traffic approaching from his right in Maxwell road. The defendant collided with a car, driven by Roy McArtney, which emerged from Howick Mr A. C. Nathan appeared for the prosecution and Air D. G. Ward for the defence. In his judgment the Magistrate said : The defendant is charged under paragraph 13 of regulation 11 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations, 1933, with failing to give way to traffic approaching from his right.at the intersection of Maxwell road and Howick road when there was a possibility of a collision if both vehicles continued on their course. Ihe facts are not in dispute. This is not an intersection in the ordinary meaning in that the roads do not cross, but as they meet it is included in the meaning of an “intersection” as defined by the regulations. Defendant was approaching the intersection along Maxwell road, Howick road being on his right. One McArtney was approaching the intersection along Howick road and had turned to his right when a collision occurred as neither driver gave way to the other. Mr Ward relies on the decision of Mr Stilwell, S.M., in Police v. Kennedy, 1935 M.C.R., 87. The facts in that case are indistinguishable from the facts, in this case. It was held that the course referred to in the regulations means the original course on which the intersection is approached and that the regulation cannot be invoked in a case where a vehicle approaching another from the right at an intersection changes its course to the right within the area, of the intersection. Mr Nathan asks me not.to follow this decision. I have given the matter careful thought and regret to say that I have arrived at a different conclusion. It cannot be doubted, in my mind, that a collision of this nature was just what the regulation was intended to prevent. The effect of the decision is, I take it, that the “off-side” rule does not apply where a street, meets but does not cross another street. In my opinion the rule ,does apply as a street meeting but not crossing another street constitutes, with the ether street, an intersection as defined. A motorist entering a street from a street meeting it, but not crossing it, must take one of two courses if he proposes to continue. E.ther he must take a course to the left, in which case there is, or should'be, no possibility oi a collision, or he must take a course to the right in which case there is a possibility of a collision if both motorists continue oh their courses. A course .does not discontinue, I think, because there : s some deviation in direction., A .tram car is within the regulation and; it. continues on its course althoughit has to turn corners .in doing so. A ship . proceeding down a winding river continues on its course although it necessarily: has to turn to follow the bends of the river. General Steam Navigation Co. v. Hedley 6 Moo. P.O. 263. Moreover thh|laii<*uage is hypothetical. The question is not- whether McArtney discontinued his course: it is—would there have been a., possibility of a collision if McArtney had. continued,,.on.his course If so the defendant’was under an obligation/to give f\\ay. ~‘Jfc :is conceivable and physically’possible for McArtney to have continued straight on for some for instance, to proceed to a private property straight ahead in the direction in which he, was proceeding. _ In my opinion, therefore, defendant broke the regulation l regret that . I am. at variance with the other magistrate as it loaves the matter in an unsatisfactory position. It- is however, for the defendant or some other party to get the matter settled by the Supreme Court. ■ . . • The defendant was fined £1 and £3 2s costs.