THE SPEED WATCH.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1846, 4 September 1913, Page 3

THE SPEED WATCH.

TRAPS SET ON RACE DAYS, ON THE HUTT ROAD. BATCH OF MOTORISTS FINED. ■ Quito a number of informations, laid under the Motor Regulations Act, 1908, camo 011 for hearing at tho Lower Hutt Court yesterday morning, before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M. Mr. A. Clair, who appeared on behalf of tho Lower Hutt Borouglx Council, stated that on tho occasion of tho last meeting of the Wellington Racing Club tivo traps wore set in order to catcli those motorists who exceeded tho speed limits. On tho first day of tho meeting 0110 trap was set at tho northern end of tho borough, but, oil tho second day, a trap had been set at the southern end. Tho times taken showed that ■ tho speed of motorists through tho borough varied from 31 miles per hour ; dowji to 25 miles per hour. Tho borough's by-law provided for a speed limit of 20 miles per hour, l>ut on the : two. days in question a little leniency was allowed, and tile limit was increased to 24. miles ail hour. Tho council was desirous of putting a stop to tho speeding, and they intended in future to bo more strict. The following pleaded guilty and were fined 205., together with 'Court- fees, 75., and solicitor's costs, 10s. Cel., in respect of ; each information Ernest P. • Duncan (two charges), Thos. Collins, j James W. 0. Brodie, Ralph Muirliead, Win. M'Luckie, F. G. Butler, Wm. Ben- ' nefct, Edjjar Allan, Walter Stanton, John Biwges's (two charges), Ronald 1 Muir (two charges), and Daniel Burke. 1 Charges were also preferred against 1 J. P. Casey (of Casey Bros.) and J. Marbindale, who were defended by Mr. J. 15. Fitzgibbon. In connection with the information, against Casey, it. was explained by Sir. Blair that a mistake had' been made, and lie asked Icavo to withdraw tho information. ' Mr. Fitzgi-bbon, in applying'for costs on behalf of Casey, referred to the fact < that his client had been put to con- ■ sidcrablo inconvenience, and also to tho fact that tho mistake in connection with tho number might havo some inlluencc in respect of other informations, as that was the only means by which tho men at .the traps were able to do- ■ teot the offenders. < The Magistrate sanctioned tho with- • drawal of the charge, and allowed Mr. Fitzgibbon £1 Is., as against the Cor- ■ poration. , In explaining tho case against' Marti- - dale, counsel raised "the point that the ; by-law was not sufficiently proved, in that tho Motor Regulation's Act of 1908 ' mado no special provision for proof of tho by-law in that Act, and that as ! tho by-law was mado under that Act, • the provisions of Section 351 of tho . Municipal Corporations Act,. 1908, as to 1 proof of by-law did not apply. It- was : necessary tihat proof 'should be given, ' as was required l by Section. 24 of the ! Bvidenco Act, 1908. Mr. Blair, in tho course of reply, con- : tended that proof of the by-law under ; the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, was sufficient, and that tlie By- ' Laws Act, 1910, was against tho con- I tcntioiD of counsel for the defence. His Worship reserved decision on the point.