OBSTRUCTING THE FOOTPATH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11541, 28 November 1900, Page 6

OBSTRUCTING THE FOOTPATH.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

MR. RICHARDSON FINED.

At the Police Court yesterday afternoon Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M., gave judgment in the case of William Richardson, temperance lecturer, who was charged on two informations, with obstructing the footpath in Queen-street on Sundays, August 5 and 26, 1900, respectively, by causing a number of persons to collect so as to impede passers-by. Mr. Cotter appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. After reviewing the evidence His Worship said, " I have gone into the by-law under which the informations were laid, viz., No. 26, section 4, of which counsel for the defence did not dispute the validity, but argued that what the defendant did was not a breach of the by-law. It was dear from the evidence that the meeting held by the defendant did for the hour and a-half that it lasted impede persons passing both on the footway and the roadway— is, taking the word ' impede' in its ordinary sense. Both the meetings were held on Sunday afternoons, when there was little vehicular traffio in that part of the city, but considerable numbers of foot-pas-sengers pass and repass by both east and west footpaths to the wharf, and t« the tees of the Devonport, Northcote, and other ferry steamers. For the defence it was urged: That the defendant had a right to hold meetings in the streets of the city and counsel pointed out that from the fact of public meetings being mentioned in the by-law, it must be implied that the City Council intended them to be held, subject to the restriction in the by-law. I do not think that that is clear, probably the holding of meetings was only introduced for the purpose of showing that the holder of the meetings was to be held responsible. Ido not know of any authority for the contention that there is any right to hold public meetings of any kind in a street, although no doubt meetings for religious purposes are not interfered with when held in a street or place where there is little traffio to be interrupted. In the Trafalgar Square case, which was mentioned at the hearing, Mr. Justice Wells said : ' A claim on behalf of persons so minded to assemble in any numbers and for so long a time as they please to remain assembled on a highway \o the detriment of others having equal rights, is in its nature irreconcilable with the right of free passage, and there is, so far as we have been able to ascertain, no authority whatever in favour of —ex parte Lewis, 21, Q.8.D., 197.' In Horner v. Cadman, 2, L.T.R., 407, 34, W.R., 413 and 50, T.P. 180, a case where defendant was charged with obstructing a street by holding a Salvation Army meeting, Mr. Justice Matthew said: ' The question is, was the defendant obstructing the free passage of the highway? He used it in an unauthorised manner, as he was only entitled to pass to and fro.' It may be pointed out that in New Zealand the members of the Salvation Army have been at various times eonvioted under the Police Offences Act, 1884, for obstructing streets by their meetings, but I understand that the police refrain from interfering with them and other religious bodies if they hold the meetings in a place where they will not impede traffic to a serious extent. 2. That the Salvation Army and other religious bodies had been allowed to meet in Queen-street, and therefore the same indulgence should be granted to the defendant. I understood the police witnesses tc assert that religious meetings were not held in this particular street. In Stone's ' Justices Manual' (28 ed., page 833) it is said that ' meetings in streets for religions worship should be excused on account of the excellence of the object in view, if conducted with decency and order, provided that no obstruction was caused, although a defence founded on constitutional right could not be sustained.' If a distinction has been made, between a religious meeting and a political one, where language was used likely, in the opinion of the police, to cause a breach of the peace, I do not think it can be said that the distinction was an improper one. " 3. The main defence was that persons passing were not impeded, because there was room to go round the crowd, as some ox them actually did. In my opinion the argument cannot be supported. The right of the publio to use the highway extends over the whole street, and I might add that persons might have business or a desire to go to the houses immediately opposite where the meeting was held ; and further, this point has already been decided in Horner v. Cadman, where the defendant had obstructed only a part of the highway by his meeting, and that there was space outside the crowd and between it and the footpath for vehicles and foot-passengers to pass and repass." The Magistrate was of an opinion that the occupation of a part only of the highway was an obstruction, and that decision was upheld on appeal. Defendant was eonvioted, and fined £5, and costs £2 lis, on the first information, and is, and costs £2 18s, on the second information.