LIVELY DEBATE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20539, 14 February 1935, Page 14

LIVELY DEBATE.

Councillor Tries to Stop Prosecution. INSPECTOR UPHELD. “ I would like to know if I’m to proceed against cyclists in future. I must know where I stand. This is very discouraging to any officer. I have been employed by the Government and two other local bodies and I’ve never seen anything like this in my life before.” This was the statement of the Waimairi County traffic inspector (Mr G. E. Stokes) to the County Council at its meeting last night, at the end of an exceedingly lively debate on the question of whether or not a cyclist who had been caught riding at night without a light should be prosecuted. After nearly three-quarters of an hour of rapid-fire exchanges a motion that the summons should be withdrawn was lost, and the debate concluded with a general expression of confidence in the inspector. When the inspector was presenting his report Mr W. J. Walter asked for information concerning proceedings that had been begun against a certain cyclist. The chairman (Mr W. P. Spencer) explained that by a resolution of the council the matter of prosecuting by-law offenders had been left to the county clerk and the traffic inspector. “ I Demand It!” “ I demand this information and I’m going to get it,” said Mr Walter, rising from his seat. He added that he would not permit the council to be run by its officers. From what he had been told the man who was to be prosecuted would be placed under extreme hardship. He was earning only 30s a week and the prosecution would probably cost him 255. Mr Walter considered that in not warning the man and informing the council of what action he had taken the inspector had exceeded his duties. Mr W. G. Chapman: You can’t go past the resolution of the council. You are out of order. Mr Walter:' Mr Chapman is always butting in without knowing what he is talking about. I’m asking for information, and I’m going to get it. If I don’t, I’ll go on to the platform and tell the public just how things are being run in this council. The chairman: Don’t get hot under the collar about it. After a further exchange of words between the chairman and Mr Walter, who was eventually ordered to resume his seat, the inspector stated that he had held up a cyclist at 9.20 p.m. on January 18, riding along Marshland Road without a light. The man’s excuse was that he had lent his lamp to a woman friend. The case was referred to the county clerk and it was decided to take proceedings. Cyclist States Case. ■Without being invited, the cyclist concerned then entered into the debate. To the surprise of some members he had been sitting at the rear of the room. His appearance brought a protest from some members on the ground that he was not a ratepayer, and was therefore exceeding his rights in attending the meeting. The chairman finally gave the man permission to state his case and show his reasons why he should not be prosecuted. These were on the lines of the statement made by Mr Walter. “You’re unlucky,” said the chairman, when the man had finished. The inspector said he considered that the man had been dealt with quite fairly. Mr G. G. Gardner said that it was not fair to hold up the inspector’s action in the way Mr Walter had done. Mr Walter: I’ve no personal feelings against the inspector, but I take the view that people should be warned for a first offence, particularly in a case where a prosecution means hardship. Mr Newnham then moved that the summons be withdrawn. The motion was seconded by Mr Walter. The motion was lost by three votes to seven. The inspector then asked for an instruction regarding what action he should take in dealing with cyclists in future, and the chairman’s reply was that the officer’s duty was to see that the by-laws were obeyed.

Members then expressed general confidence in the inspector, and the council proceeded to the next business.