THE WRONG WAY OUT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9262, 16 January 1889, Page 6

THE WRONG WAY OUT.

A CURIOUS LAW POINT. At the Police Court yesterday morning, before Dr. Giles, R.M., John Kane was charged that, on the 26th December, at Ellorslie, he committed a breach of the railway regulations by climbing a fence enclosing a railway platform, thus evading payment of his fare, and obstructing John William Oldham, an officer in tho employment of the Railway Department, in the execution of his duty. Defendant pleaded guilty to climbing the fence, but not of evading payment of tho fare.

Mr. Theo. Cooper, who appeared on behalf of the Railway Department, said that the offence was committed on a race-day, when a very largo number of people were present at Ellerslie. The department, for the purpose of avoiding accident, and also to see that only those persons travelled by rail who paid their fares, had barriers erected, and four or five guards stationed for the purpose of checking tickets. There was ample accommodation for tf"e public, and if the public would only help the Government a little in preserving order, there would bo no inconvenience. On the day in question, a large number of persons rushed the platform, jumping over the barriers or clambering over the fence on to the platform, in order to get into tho train. It was a matter of utter impossibility to collect the tickets in a train containing 1500 or 2000 people, and the only way of collecting was by taking them from the people as they passed through the gates at the Ellorslie platform. He did not think that the defendant evaded payment of the fare ; they had every reason to believe that he had a ticket at the time ; and the only offence with which they charged him was that of obstructing the railway officer, though there was no physical obstruction. A number of other people did the same thing, but the officers were able to identify only Kane and another man.

Dr. Giles asked whether the defendant caused an obstruction by climbing over the fence.

Mr. Cooper urged that this constituted a passive obstruction, as defendant thereby prevented the officer from collecting his ticket.

Dr. Giles said he did not think that was an "obstruction."

Mr. Cooper remarked that if His Worship's view of the matter was a right one it would be a matter of great difficulty to regulate the railway traffic upon race-days. There was no by-law which met the case. His Worship thought that a by-law could easily be framed. It seemed to him an abuse of the English language to call an evasion an "obstruction." Mr. Cooper : It might be a constructive obstruction. His Worship said that, if Mr. Cooper wished, he would take time to consider the matter. Mr Cooper asked that this be done, as the question was an important one. He did not think the Government would frame a by-law unless the matter went to the Supreme Court, and he would ask His Worship to state his opinion for that Court. Dr. Giles postponed his decision for a week.