"GRAVELY UNEASY"

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXXVI, Issue 9061, 20 April 1937, Page 3

"GRAVELY UNEASY"

MAGISTRATE'S COMMENTS ON WITHDRAWAL OP SUMMONS PAEROA COURT INCIDENT The quandary in which he was placed through the action of the traffic inspector in asking for a summons to be withdrawn after an offeiice had actually been committed, and the far-reaching effects such requests would have on subsequent action, were emphasised by the Magistrate, Mr F. H. Levien, at Paero-i, during the hearing of breaches of traffic regulations. The bench's comments were prompted when Mr D. Morrow, main highways inspector, asked under instructions for a summons to be withdrawn in the case of a man charged with operating a motor vehicle with insufficient brakes. "Counsel for defendant, Mr C. N. O'Neill, advanced a plea of guilty "under extenuating circumstances." The inspector, in applying for the withdrawal, stated that his chief asked for that course, the defendant having had his brakes adjusted. "Do you realise that you will, in duty bound, have to withdraw all summons if the complaint is remedied? You will have to give the same chance to all," stated the magistrate. "I will not, under any circumstances, allow that position to obtain." The time to withdraw a summons, or the time to act, was before the information was laid, the bench advised. "This is just the position the statute is out to prevent," he said, referring to the offence committed by the defendant of driving without sufficient brakes. Mr O'Neill suggested that the I traffic inspectors were carrying out their duties very well by warning offenders rather than by "persecuting" them. Only the extreme cases; were taken to court. "I don't intend to carry on that way—if a vehicle is fixed the case will be withdrawn," announced the magistrate. "It means the court will say, 'go away, my good fellow, ! get your brakes fixed up and if you i bring or send a certificate next court ! day nothing more will happen'." I "This case leaves me gravely uneasy," Mr Levien stated in convicting I defendant and ordering him to pay costs. Another case of a driver operating with defective brakes was called next. "Did you give this man an opportunity to put his brakes in order?" the magistrate, asked. "Why not give him a week. On its merits this case is the same as the other. Perhaps the other man had enough money to fix his vehicle and so you gave him time, but this one had not." The inspector said that defendant had no brakes at all. A fine of 30s and costs was imposed.