PARKING CARS IN PEEL STREET.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 15874, 13 July 1922, Page 5

PARKING CARS IN PEEL STREET.

SEVERAL MORE CASES

NEED FOR DEFINING THE "PARK

Several more cases concerning the

"parking" of motor cars at night in Peel street were heard in the Magistrate's Court this morning before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M. Charles Edwin Matthews, William Ruru, and Helen Smallbone were each charged with leaving cars unattended in Peel street for more than 30 minutes, and with failing to keep lights properly trimmed, etc. Tho case of Helen Smallbone was called first. Mr. 11. D. Clnisp appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty on the first charge, and guilty on the second.

Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatriek explained that the cases were similar to those heard on Monday. His Worship decided to treat them in the same way. as he had treated the previous cases. He did not wish to discourage the police in the execution of their duties, but he pointed out that if the Borough Council wished to enforce the by-law with regard to the "park' it would»have to define strictly where the "park"' was. 'There was no doubt that the traffic regulations here needed attention by the police, but in this case he would be obliged to dismiss the first charge, and on the second charge, in which there was a technical breach, he would convict and discharge defendant. His Worship had had a look at tho scene, and had noticed that the railing had been put up since the by-law was adopted. He thought that it would be necessary to define the limits of the "park." Tho charges against Charles Edwin Matthews, for whom Mr. J. S. Wauchop appeared, were similarly disposed of.

William Ruru did not appear to answer the charges against him. Sergeant Dempsey said that tho defendant was the driver of the bus between Gisborne.and Manutuke. On the Saturday night in question, the bus was left in 'Peel street. The bus was projecting slightly over the road, being parallel with the road, and- alongside the i;ailing. His Worship asked whether a motor bus was entitled to use the "park." On reference to the by-law, his Worship found that there was no proper definition of a motor car. He did not think that motor busses should be allowed to "park" on the private stand. The by-law permitted any driver of a motor car to use the stand, though it did not define what a motor car was for the purposes of the by-law. This was a case for some penalty, and on the charge of leaving the bus unattended, the defendant was fined ss, with costs 7s.

On the charge of failing to have lights on the bus, Sergeant Dempsey also gave evidence, and tho defendant was convicted and discharged.