NO TAIL LIGHTS

Waikato Times, Volume 86, Issue 13082, 17 January 1916, Page 4

NO TAIL LIGHTS

POLICE MAKE A RAID. UPON BY-LAW BREAKERS. DEFECTIVE KEGULATJON. -Motor by-laws infringers figured prominently in the proceedings before -Magistrate E. Rawson at the Hamilton Pol ce Court to-day. The principal offenders were hailed lor a I.roach of tue n.oti r iovulations, which require a light to be so affixed as to illuminate the registered number ami mark o! identification.

•I. W. Civil, through his solicitor, Mr H. A. Hopkins, pleaded "not guilty." The pul'ce evidence, through Constable Jackson, could identify W.O. I<l, which was the registered number of defendant's car, but it could not go to show that defendant was driving it when the car was in Victoria street about 9.10 on the night of December Kith last. The evidence of Sonior-Seigt. Cassells showed that four young men wore in the car, and he would say now that delendint, whom he hail never seen until the Court sat, was not one of them. The evidence for the defence showed that defendant's car was not. as far as he knew, in Hamilton up to December •'ill, and he certainly was not in the town himself. Defendant said that he had locked his car in his garage at (J o'clock, and it was there next morning. He did not consider it possible for the car to be removed during that time. Defendant was absent until 10.45 p.m., but people were in the house all tlio time. Defendant's opinion was that the number should have been read as 134. Counsel made application for costs to be given against the police.

Scrrnr-Sergt. Cassclls hold there was nn negligence on tlir part of the police, and it liad not been shown that it was rot an iinposOiiiity lor the car Uj ho taken nit.

His Wo ship said that ho would hold that it was not the defendant's oar. Therefore it seemed to him that it must haw been eiroltssuos on the constable's p::rt. : rid h • would allow costs against the poli e, totalling IT 19s. Jas. Wheeler, who pleaded guilty, was on'o-ed to ] ay csts amounting to 7s, tli" po'ico being s-iti-fud that defondant mos not aw iv that the light was rot burning. H. T. (Miles, who had intim::to<l that ho was file oh ;i i and drr, or of a c.ir dete-t< rl 'imilaily offending, was fined 20s and 7s wldlo F. Groeiislade. junr., was dealt wi.h in tfio same

manner. Ch iiies Andrews, who.se fault was proved to be one more of accident than design, was ordered to pay 7s costs onlv.

His Worship accepted tile theory of defendant A. H. Hyde that the overpowering 100 candle-power lamp outside the Commercial Hotel had caused Constable Jackson to lie of the opinion that the tail light- of his car was out, and dismissed iho case. If the police, alter an ocular demonstration under similar circumstances, which the defendant was prepared to give, were satisfied of their case succeeding they could resuscitate it. C. W. Rawlinson, who had admitted his guilt to Constable Ehhett, was fined I's and 7s edsts, and Wm. H. Baker's similar admission to Constable Mcintosh cost him a coresponding sum. In the case against A. T. Gifford, the defendant said that he could not recall the occasion of December 18, when he was alleged to have offended. As the polce were unable to identify him as the driver of the car the case was dismissed. Several other cases were withdrawn by the police through this roa-

As the hv-law stands on the miestion of tail lights jt can apparently lip broken with impunity, and the police have no redress unless they can prove who was actually driving at the moment. Tt certtin'y appears defective, as the law has absolutely no opportunity of detecting the drivers of cars which arc travelling at a speed, while the danger to themselves and to the public at large cannot he effectively diminished with a by-law which can only on chance occasions be enforced. OTHER BREACHES.

For rid'ng cycles without lights Harry Shaw and Redmond Condon were fined 10s and 7s costs, and David Andrews, for cycling on the footpath, was fined 5s and 7s costs. Alexander Miller and vS. Jenkinson, for the offence of leaving unlighted cars in Ward street, were fined 5s and 7s costs, and for being in possession of an unlighted vehicle Joseph Barugh was fined 10s and 7s cost*. A similar charge against Jno. Wilcocks was dismissed, as the defendant satisfied the Court that he had only driven a short ditance from the stables in Collingwood street to get clear of the traffic and await the return of his daughter with the necessary lamps. A charge against John Rose of negligent driving was sufficiently met, in His Worship's opinion, by a conviction as defendant had already paid out some £6O in expenses to a lady with whose vehicle h's ear had collided.