BREACH OF REGULATION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 75, Issue 6445, 12 November 1947, Page 8

BREACH OF REGULATION

PARKING OF CAR IN PROHIBITED AREA LOCAL BUILDER CONVICTED The re-hearing of a case against. Gilbert Henry Fayne for an infringement of a parking regulation was conducted in the Te Awamutu Court yesterday, the presiding Magistrate being Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M. Defendant was charged by the Transport Department, represented by Traffic Inspector M. P. Norris, with stopping his vehicle within 20ft of a pedestrian crossing. In evidence, Inspector Norris stated that on 11th July last he found defendant’s vehicle—a car with, trailer attached parked in Alexandra Street within a prohibited area. He waited for defendant who came out of a shop nearby, and explained to him the danger of stopping his car so near the crossing. The Inspector alleged that defendant replied in obscene terms, got into hij car and drove off. *

Mr S. S. Preston, appearing for the defence, produced a plan of the area wherein the offence was stated by the Inspector to have taken place. To Mr Preston the Inspector said he had first seen defendant’s car when he come over the pedestrian crossing. Following this he had inspected a private car, and was standing by the latter’s vehicle when defendant came out of the shop.

Counsel for the defence stated that when approached by the Inspector Fayne gestured, “There’s my car, there’s the pedestrian crossing, and my vehicle is yards aw r ay!” With this The Inspector disagreed, maintaining that the words used by defendant were of an obscene nature. To the Magistrate, counsel for the defence said the case was the first prosecution if its type in Te Awamutu. It was considered that the attitude of the Inspector had not been justified, and that his position does not give him authority to adopt the tactics complained of in the case under review. (It was stated by counsel for the defence that the Inspector attracted Fayne’s attention by shouting out some distance away.). “If accused were guilty of a small technical breach, it was the duty of the Inspector to point it out to him without [adopting the attitude that had been assumed in the defendant’s case.” said Mr Preston.

Gilbert Henry Fayne, the defendant, took the witness stand, and to Mr Preston stated that on July 11th he had driven down Alexandra Street, with two of his employees in the front seat of his car with him, and a load of wall-board in a trailer attached to the vehicle. Approaching the pedestrian crossing in question he stopped for a few minutes to get a parcel in a shop. He stopped as near as possible to a non-parking sign, and left the engine running. Defendant said he heard a snout, which startled him, from distance away, and turning he saw the Inspector, and waited for him to approach. Defendant said that the Inspector appeared excited, and his attitude when alleging that the car was too near the pedestrian crossing was one of brusqueness. Fayne said that when approached he had replied to the Inspector as already stated by counsel for the defence, and in addition he had said, “Will you use commonsense about it?” Defendant said he was startled when the Inspector shouted out at him, and became mildly annoyed. Continuing, Fayne said there would be no opportunity for Inspector Norris to inspect the private car previously referred to, in the time between his hailing of witness and the ensuing discussion on the position of defendant’s vehicle. Fayne stated that he was primarily concerned with refuting the Inspector’s accusation that he had used immoderate language when approached. If he had been guilty of a breach of traffic regulations only he would have made no comment, as he paid particular at- ■ tention to the regulations and endeavoured to observe them at all times. Both defendant and his counsel, however, expressed concern that the Inspector should allege that Fayne had used strong language when taxed with a breach of the traffic Tules. They contended that such had not been the case.

Raymond Grace, retired farmer, and now assisting in the building of transit houses under the supervision of Fayne, gave evidence corroborative of that.of defendant. Witness said that with another employee he was travelling in the front seat of a car driven by Fayne. Defendant left the vehicle for a few minutes in Alexandra Street while getting a parcel from a shop. Witness said he heard someone shout out in an excited voice. There was some disagreement between the Magistrate, witness and counsel for the defence on a question of where witness first saw the Traffic Inspector. Witness also stated that there were a number of vehicles between defendant’s car and the kerb, whereas it was claimed by the Inspector that there were no other vehicles near Fayne’s. In summing up, the Magistrate said that according to the Traffic Inspector defendant’s car was parked in a prohibited area while defendant was in a shop across the street. The inspector waited for defendant to return to his car, and in speaking to him about the breach of traffic regulations, Fayne used obscene language*

The Magistrate made a few pointed remarks about the way the case for the defence had been conducted., “Defendant states that the first he knew of the Inspector was when he ‘shouted out’ from some distance down the street,” said the Magistrate. “If the Inspector had acted thus without being able from that point to see if defendant’s car was parked too close to the crossing, then his conduct was little less than insane.” Traffic inspectors can find plenty of cause for prosecution without going out of the way to look for them, commented the Magistrate, adding that there is a section of the community which is resentful of control. Tn conclusion the Magistrate stated that he believed the evidence of the Traffic Inspector and was not satisfied with that of the defence. Fayne was thereupon convicted and fined £3 and costs.