BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13699, 1 June 1915, Page 9

BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

Thirty persons were charged at the Police Court yesterday, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., with infringing tli : new by-law relating to usinir tho wrung side of Gladstone- road.

The Sub-Inspector sal: I iu> oi<i u>t think any of the defendant* wimv iuvartof the by-law. — His Worship s;ud thn being so he would inflict a a.uidl fine. "1 am afraid this ditVn.iai\t can;.';. plead ignorance of the by-la,™ ," rein ed the Sub-Inspector, whtu the name of the Mayor was called. "Hardly.'' observed his Worship, "seeing lie is Mayor of the town and signed the h\ - laws." Be said he supposed people haii got so used to using that sklh of tin 1 roa<l and forget ail about it. Mr Stock, for defendant, .sakl the offence happened the morning alter Uio by-law was signed, and Mr Sherratt forgot all about it. Mr G. Grant, m adinitiug a technical breach, said he had just crossed the road. He supposed he must not cross the road m future.

A fine of Is without costs was imposed m each ease. "I would like it clearly understood," added Mr Harton, "that if there are any further- convictions after this I shall have to increase the penalty." The defendants, were : — James Livinggtone (cart), Elizabeth Beatrice Mullolly (trap), Albert Hacche (lorry), Albert French (cart), Frank Lowndes (cart), George Scragg (coach), Mira Mi.tford (Mr Willock) (motor car). Win. Grice Sherratt (Mr Stock) (motor car), David Brooker (motor car), Daniel McKeague (motor car), Albeit Penfold (cab) ; cyclists — William Moss, Fargus Dale Dunlop, Fred Harvey, Win. Kennedy, Allan Reynolds James Edwin Carr, Wm. Gisborne Morrison, Kenneth Prime, John Ernest Bridger, Grant McDonald, John Wallace, George Tyson, Edward Simpson, Robert Mcßeath, Leonard Skeet, James Mead, George Grant, Frank Stitchbury. Albert Paine, Arthur Brooke, James Douglas Parminter, Clifford Hawkins.

Percy Andrew s«ud lie admitted the fact, but submitted it was not a breach of the by-la\r to ride on the righthand side of the tramline when proceeding m the direction of the post office.— ln reply to t defendant, Constable Fischer said it was a fairly wet day, and the other . side of the road >vas muddy. — Mr Andrew said he did not wish to raise a frivolous objection, but he thought thejjolice had misunderstood the by-law. He pointed, but that the bicycle was not included m the definition of the term "vehicle"; also that he was charged with "riding" when the by-law stated "driving." In interpreting the by-law the intention of the authorities ha>l to be considered. Some of .the councillors had assured him that the by-law was made for the protect tion of cyclists, not for their punish ment. On the day m question the northern side of the road was m a very bad state, and one used it at the risk if his life. — His Worship :- That might be. given m mitigation of the penalty, but not otherwise. — Mr Andrew: But it makes the by-law harsh and unreasonable, and as such it is invalid. — SubInspector Johnston said for an interpretation of the^ word vehicle they had to go to the dictionary. — Mr Andrews : What is the object of the by-law? — Sub-Inspector Jonnston : To make people keep on the proper side of the rbad^ and if complied with! there would be no accidents.

His Worship said 'he must over-rule the objection raised, as he considered a bicycle Was a vehicle within the meaning of the by-law. The by-law was, m his opinion, a very, necessary and proper one. It was made for the protection of the public. He Mould impose a similar fine as m the other cases — Is without costs.

For cycling after dark without a light Frederick Colin Perry . and Clause Wheeler were each fined £1 and costs 7s. Mr Dunlop a)3peared on behalf of Joseph Frederick Duffy, who was charged with cycling on a footpath, and entered- a plea of yuilty. Counsel ox plained that the lad was the main support of the family, and the usual fine would be a great hardship. There were other mitigating curcumjstanc.es which were taken into consideration, and a» fine of 5s without costs was imposed. For a similar offence John >3inc■ham was fined &\ ancl costs 7s. .lames Smith did not appear to answer a charge of leaving a cart unattended, and he was fined £1 and costs 7s.