DRIVING ON THE FOOTPATHS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11986, 7 June 1902, Page 7

DRIVING ON THE FOOTPATHS.

_«■ A KHTBER PASS INCIDENT. The question of the right of persons to drive along the city footpaths during the temporary closing of a street came before Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., at; the lolice Court yesterday. Several residents of Khyber Pass Road were summoned to appear on charges of driving vehicles along the footpath on that road without first obtaining the permission of the City Council so to do. The first oases called upon were those against Dr. E. W. Sharman and Daniel Irving, for whom Mr. J. O. Martin appeared. The. charges arose out of the temporary closing of the Khyber Pass Road during the progress of the electric tramway works. Irving, it was explained, was Dr. Sharman's coachman. Constable McLellau stated that on May 25 he saw the defendants driving in a trap, and turning out of Symonds-street drive along the footpath on the Khyber Pass Road. Defendants did this to avoid the barrier across the road. They continued on the footpath for 15yds or 16yds after passing the barrier, until reaching Dr. Sharman's gate. There was no reason why the defendant's should not, after passing the barrier, have returned to the roadway, which was in a fair condition for traffic. Witness asked Dr. Sharman whether he had permission from the City Council to drive on the footpath, and received a reply in the negative. His Worship: Should he have to ask permission to go home? Sub-Inspector Mitchell said the city bylaws required that permission should be asked before driving along a footpath. In answer to Mr. Martin, the witness said that there were two barriers across the road— one at Symonds-street and the other at Boston Road. Defendant's house was between these two barriers, but he could have got home by going by way of Mount Eden Road and Burlcigh-street. Constable Carroll said that the defendant could have got to his house by way of Mount Eden Road and Nugent-street. He might also have taken down the barrier. Mr. Martin said that it would have been illegal to take down the barrier, which was ereoled by the City Council. Sub-Inspector Mitchell said that the whole difficulty might have been overcome by simply obtaining permission from the Council to drive on the footpath. Mr. Martin submitted that a man had a . common-law right to get to and from his own property, and any by-law which deprived him of this right was altogether unreasonable and bad. His Worship: He might take down the barrier. Mr. Martin said this would be an illegal act, as the Council had power, under the Municipal Corporations Act, tc close a road to traffic at any time. His Worship (to Sub-Inspector Mitchell): There is no suggestion that any person was endangered by the defendant driving on the footpath ? Sub-Inspector Mitchell: Oh. no, sir. The case was dismissed, and the other similar charges against Charles Williams, Dr. Marsack, and Dr. Girdler, wore withdrawn.