CONTROL OF TRAFFIC.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20537, 11 April 1930, Page 13

CONTROL OF TRAFFIC.

COURT UPHOLDS INSPECTOR.

CONVICTION OF A CLUB.

DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL. The appeal of the. Auckland Automobile Racing Club, Limited (Mr. Holm den), against its conviction in the Magistrate's Court at Otahuhu, on a chaige of obstructing n traffic inspector in the exercise of his powers, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Hcrdman in tho Supreme Court yesterday. "Unless tho authority of traffic inspectors is properly respected, and unless they are given proper protection in the exercise of their authority, regulations such as we are now considering would be of little use," said His Honor. Mr. Prendergast appeared for the respondent, Charles Norman Clark, of Otahuhu, traffic inspector. The facts were that on December 14, 1929,' the appellant company held a meeting far motor vehicle racing on Henning's Speedway at Mangere. The business of controlling tho traffic on this occasion must have taxqd the ability and ingenuity of thoso in control, said His Honor, for it was stated that about 1000 vehicles made their way to tho speedway on that day. For the purpose of selling tickets to persons desirous of being admitted to the speedway, live persons employed by the appellant were stationed on the roadway at each of the five gates through which persons entered the grounds. Thus, at or about tho entrances to the speedway a number of persons was standing on the roadway selling tickets to motor-car owners, who were desirous of being admitted to the grounds. When the inspector directed an official of the company to remove the ticket-sellers from the road he was openly r|eficd.

"Situation o! Great Difficulty." "I have, no difficulty in deciding that a band of ticket-sellers who were stationed on a roadway and who accosted drivers .of cars as they approached tlie speedway gates for the purpose of selling tickets created a situation of great difficulty for one who, for the time being, was responsible for the regulation ot traffic," continued His Honor. " Every driver of a motor car who wanted to purchase a ticket would stop his car in the roadway, so if all the ticket-sellers were engaged 'in attending to the requirements of motor-car drivers at the same time it is not difficult to imagine a serious interference with traffic. "These men obstructed traffic and they obstructed the traffic inspector in tho performance of his duty, for how could this officer perform his duties effectively—how could he regulate the progress of a long stream of cars if the progress of that stream was hindered by ticketsellers? H?;, on the one hand, would want cars to keep moving. The ticketsellers, on the other hand, would want the cars to stop. The ticket-sellers were the employees of the company, and acted under the direction of the officials of the company. It is therefore necessary to decide whether a company can be convicted of an offence of this kind."

Liability of Company. His Honor said that in the present case the obstruction of a traffic inspector in the exercise of his powers was prohibited, and there was nothing in the regulations to indicate that there must be proof of wilful obstruction. The interference with the. traffic inspector originated with those who controlled the affairs of the company. The ticket sellers aided and abetted.

The duty not to interfere with a traffic inspector was imposed upon all members of the community. If a person committed an offence through the medium of his agent or servant. His Honor did not see why he should not be held liable; and if a company offended against the. regulations through tho medium of servants he, thought, that it committed an act which had been absolutely forbidden, because tho legislature had thought it important to prevent the act from being committed by anybody. Tho appeal was dismissed with £7 7s costs.