Case Against Motorist Lost On Technical Point

Chronicle (Levin), 19 April 1948, Page 4

Case Against Motorist Lost On Technical Point

A claim by counsel that the prosecution's ev.idence was ihcomplete because no 'proof • that the school traffic coiitrol was a duly authorised one, operating at a properly appointed place,.had been produced resulted in a charge against a motorist being dismissed in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, on Friday. . The case was one in which Harold Alfred Williams, motor driver, of Levin, was charged with failing to give the right of way to school children using, or about to use, a crossing in front . of the Levin Primary School at a time when the patrol's stop sign was extended. Constable A. T. Kelk gave evidence that 12.5 p.m. on the day of the alleged offence he was in the. vicinity of the school,. and saw some children stepping off the crossing at one end while others were stepping on at the other. Though the stop sign was still extended by the patrol, the vehicle driven by defendant had carried on. He had stopped the vehicle and the driver's excuse had been that he had not seen the children on the: crossing, and, that he thought the sign was down. • * ( Cross-examined by counsel ior defendant, Mr. J. Todd, Constable Kelk said the truck would have been travelling about 15 m.p.h. It had slowed down at the crossing as if to stop. ' Called by the- police, Francis Richard Routley, a schoolboy, aged 12, said that he had been in charge of the patrol on that day and had put the sign up for three or four minutes to allow the children to cross. After describing the incident and the progress of the children across the corssing, he stated that the patrol was. dressed in white coats and caps, and had the patrol badge on this uniform. Defendant had stated that he saw no children that were.likely to require the crossing, but it appeared that he had been mistaken, said Mr. Todd. He then queried the non-production' of proof' as to the legality of the patrol. That matter was a technical one and unfortunately it had been upheld recently in the Supreme Court, said Mr. Goulding. If the defehce was going "to take advantage of that, then the charge must be dismissed.