Traffic Charge Dismissed On Technicality

Chronicle (Levin), 9 April 1949, Page 4

Traffic Charge Dismissed On Technicality

1 When counsel for the defence 1 questioned a technical point in the I proseeution's case in • • the MagisI trate's Court, Levin, yesterday, the | Magistrate, Mr. A. M. Goulding, ! S.M., dismissed the charge. Alfred I James Gimfolett was charged with | failing to keep as far as practicable 1 to the left of the road. He was reI presented by Mr. J. Todd, while I Traffic Inspector R. Mason conI ducted the case for the Transport 1 Department. i Inspector Mason said that on De- | cember 2 he iiad ibeen proceeding f from • Levin to Shannon, when- he I had Qvertaken defendant's car. He a had followed it for half a mile and I It had evenly straddled . the white | ' line on the straight, and, on coming. I to a left-ha'nd blind corner, had I Sw.ung to" the ' right, while at. a ! fight-hand blind "turning the' I vehicle h'ad c'ut the corner by two | feet. I To Mr. Todd, Inspector Mason 1 said that the portion oi the road I referred to was just south of Shan-"-1 | non where it followed a dip, rose 1 slightly- on a left-hand bend, dip-t I ped again and finally climbed the' i -other, side. of the . hill, Asked ..Whether it. was not a fact that a ! car on the one side of the hill would I see another on the other side, Mr. I Mason said that this would be posI sible depending on the speed of the I two vehicles, Ihere had been little I traffic on the road, he added. | In his defence, Mr. Todd said that ! his client felt that he should not $ be charged because he had not cut I the corners as stated. He admitted | riding the white line on the I straight. He would like to put for- | ward a technical defence, conI tinued Mr. Todd. Gimblett was

! charged with failing to keep to the I left of the white line "marked on j the road by the local authority." 1 Recent adjustments to the regulaI tions had resulted in the wording j being changed to "marked by a conj trolling authority." Mr. Mason had ! not as yet submitted any evidence 1 along these lines ahd this point had I not been proved. j Mr. Mason submitted that the 1 Main Highways Board was the | local authority. I Mr. Goulding: But you have ■ nothing to prove it. | It was a technicaiity, but he conI sidered defendant was entitled to I rely upon it, compiented Mr. Gould- | ing, in dismissing the charge. He $ would dfaw attention to the dis1 crepancy on the form, he added. i Costs amounting to £2/11/- were al- | lowed.