MOTORIST FINED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 256, 28 October 1931, Page 7

MOTORIST FINED.

“ One of the Most Serious Cases,” says S.M. INSPECTOR OBSTRUCTED. “ The case is one of the most serious of its kind I have had. On, the charge of obstructing the inspector the defendant is liable to a fine of £SO. I am not going to fix the penalty at that amount, but I propose to make it sufficiently large to show him that that sort of thing will not be tolerated at all.” The above statement was made by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, when convicting and fining William Hay Ramsay, a salesman, of New Brighton, £lO and costs for interfering with a traffic inspector in the course of his duties; 30s and costs for refusing to produce his driver’s license; and 30s and costs for driving a motor-car at a dangerous speed. The defendant, who was represented by Mr Russell, had a driver’s license taken out with the Christchurch City Council cancelled and was prohibited from taking out another one until the end of May next. He was allowed fourteen days in which to pay the small fines and one month in which to find the major amount. Inspector’s Evidence. Evidence was given by Fred Blewitt, traffic inspector to the New Brighton Borough Council, that on October 12 last he saw a car travelling along Estuary Road at a speed which warranted his taking the number. Defendant was driving, and although he hung his head in passing, witness was able to identify him by an Alsatian dog. The inspector added that he went to the defendant’s home and when he asked the latter to produce his license, filthy language was used. The defendant then set his Alsatian on to witness, and struck him on the jaw when he refused an invitation to go inside. “ I have had considerable trouble with this man ever since last July, when he was fined for not registering a dog,” said the inspector. “ One evening he sneaked behind the hotel at Brighton, and when I came up he called me filthy names and asked me to fight. On two other occasions he pushed his dog on to my legs. On September 7 he stopped me at the corner of Jervois Street and ‘ sooled ’ his dogs on to me. I was riding along on my bicycle and he came across and forced me off, and wanted me to fight. His manner has been so objectionable that I reported the matter to the council, who instructed the town clerk to inform the police. I have never once spoken to him, nor retaliated, but he has insulted me on three occasions.”

Cross-examined, the inspector estimated that defendant’s speed was 30 miles an hour. Mr Russell: Did you call on him to stop? Witness: I did not. tl You say the defendant ‘ cracked you ?—Yes. It is not the first time you have been “ cracked,” is it?—No. " Gave Man a Hiding.” You brought a man before the Court some time ago, and the Magistrate did not believe your story, did he?—On that occasion I had the satisfaction of giving the man a hiding, and I should have done the same in this case. The defendant, in reply to questions by the Magistrate, said he got his license from the City Council because he sometimes stayed at his sister s place in Barrington Street. He also knew’ that Blewitt would not issue him a license if he could possibly avoid it. There was no misrepresentation in anv way about the matter. Ha had signed his name “H. Ramsay,” because he believed his usual signature would suffice. The defendant added that travelling in the car with him on October 12 were Mrs Ramsay, his sister, and another man. When he saw the inspector his speedometer was 'registering eighteen miles an hour. His speed even on a clear road never exceeded twentyfive miles an hour. He drove straight past the inspector, who gave no indication that he required him to stop. W hen the inspector asked for his license, he said he would produce it to another official. He did not, however, possess one at that time. Blewitt placed his hands on him, and witness said he shrugged himself free. The inspector twisted his wrist, and he pushed him away, but did not use bad language. He "denied having insulted the inspector, or having put his dog on to him. “I Have Got You ” “ I have got you where I have wanted you for quite a long time," said Inspector Blewitt by way of opening his cross-examination. Mr Russell: —I know that. Defendant denied the imputation that he had hidden his head and Mr Blewitt responded: “ You did lou are capable of doing anything, Ramsay. I know you too well.” Mr Russell: You are showing considerable bias! . “ Your Worship can see there nas been considerable feeling between the parties,” said Mr Russell, in pleading for leniency for the defendant, should the Magistrate elect to fine him. The Magistrate, in fixing the penalties pointed out that he had decided to cancel defendant’s license because of the manner in which he procured it. lie was quite satisfied that Ranuay had been travelling at an exc « s ®‘Jf speed. It was also clear that he had tried to mislead the inspector and that his conduct was most provoking.