MOTOR BY-LAWS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 15871, 10 July 1922, Page 5

MOTOR BY-LAWS.

FURTHER SERIFS OF CHARGES

PARKING OARS IN PEEL STKEEI

A number of by-law cases occupied the attention of Mr. J, S. Barton, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning, the. cases concerning motor drivers, the leaving, of cars in Peel street, and the question of providing cars with lights. John Virgo (Mr. J. S. Wauchop) was charged with driving a motor ear along Gladstone road at a- greater speed than ten miles an hour. A plea of not guilty was entered.

Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatrick said that the defendant was travelling at a. speed between 25 and 30 miles an hour.

Kvidenee was given by Constable Brown, who said that at 1.45 p.m. on May 16 he saw defendant's car travelabout 25 miles an hour. When opposite witness he slowed up considerably unci stopped further up. The scene, Derby street, corner, was within the congested area of the town, andthe state of the traffic was normal.To Mr. Wauchop witness stated that he would be safe in saying that defendant was travelling at 20 miles an hour, though witness considered that ho was travelling at 25 miles an hour.-

Constable Walden said that defendant telephoned the police station on May 17, and witness told him that he was reported for exceeding the speed limit. Ho stated that he considered he was going at 14 miles an hour, but he denied travelling at 20 to 25 miles an hour.

Mr. Wauchop submitted that, the speed at which defendant was travelling was not; in excess of that provided tor in the by-law, when reasonably administered.

The defendant stated that he was a stock agent. On the.day in question he had arranged to meet a man at the Boyal hotel. Defendant left his office and entered Gladstone road at the post office just as a tramcar was leaving at '1.40. p.m. The tramcar and another motor car passed him at Grey street. He did not remember seeing the constable at. Derby, street, and lie did not apply, his, brakes. What lie. had safcl to the police station was that if the tramcar had .passed him he could not have been exceeding the speed limit. At other times when he had been travelling alongside tram Cars his speedometer showed 14 mile 9an hour. The tramcar stopped once, and he passed itf but it passed him again at Grey street. II is Worship said (hat he found it difficult to pictur* the", tramcar passing defendant, after he had once jessed it. Jie must accept the constable's evidence that there was a breach. It was not a serious breach, as. there was no traffic about. It was a case which just called tor the advertisement of the by-law, and a warning to.the public generally. Defendant would be fined ss, with costs 7s,

Boy Vincent Gully (Mr. J. S. .Wauchop) . pleaded not guilty ■to charges of tailing to provide- a car. with proper lights, and with leaving it in Peel street unattended for more than 30 minutes. Senior-Sergeant Eitzpatrick stated that the police had been, receiving complaints about the way in which cars -were being left near, the private car stand in Peel street between the pupiic conveniences and Ghilders road. They often blocked I lie roadway. Sergeant Dempsey gave evidence as to seeing the car left in Peel street without lights., There was a private stand provided in the avenue of trees. The car was visible, by means of shop lights in Peel street.

His Worship thought that if the "park" -was lull, there was no harm in putting another car. there, even if it was not completely on the "park." The principal offence was leaving the car without lights. Mr Wauchop contended that if the car was properly parked, no light was required. It was not really a highway. His Worship lights were required by the byhilwjjvcn' if cars were on the park. Taking- a reasonable view, however, of the matter, he thought that lights were not necessary if the cars were properly parked. . Senior-Sergt. Fitzpatrick pointed out that the cars were blocking the road. His Worship pointed out that if the "park" was full, a car could not be left where it would be an obstruction on the road. ,

Mr Wauchop pointed.out that some doubt existed in the minds of the publis as to the actual extent of the parking place. Some of the larger cars;if put under the, avenue of trees abutted slightly on to the road. His Worship held that there must be a connection. The bylaw, however, must be reasonably' administered. It seemed to him that if a car was anywhere Within, the avenue of .trees it would bo. on the park. .On the question of boiiijj without lights, the defendant would be convicted and discharged, and on ,the charge, of .leaving the. caV unattended, hjs> Worship: said that. he thought defendant had reasonably complied with the parking bylaw. : The ease was dismissed. ,■»-,,.■■', ~.

William G. Sherratt, for whom Mr J. S. Wauchop appeared, was'similarly charged; and was dealt with in the same manner. . ~.-.j ;

Lionel Wilkinson pleaded' guilty ,to a charge of failing to provide a motor car with a tail light. He explained that he had bad trouble .with the tail .light. He was fined 10s, and ordered to pay costs,,-. 7s- -.-, -..-... ~ The case of Qyr.i.l Mackley, who appeared on similar charges, was likewise disposed of. His. Worship commented that when the "park" was full a man ran a big risk in leaving his car there. If it were full he should t,ike the car. somewhere else.