OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 53, 26 November 1919, Page 7

OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC

■•■: ;____!s_ _ SHOPKEEPER PROSECUTED. As a result of a window display of stockings and shoes on human legs, a largo crowd gathered outside the premises of William Joseph Cody, in Courtenay Place,' and tho traffic was obstmct- . ed. This caused a 'breach of a city bylaw, and at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. E. Page, S.M., Cody was charged with having caused an obstruction by permitting a congregation of persons outside his premises: Sergeant Lopdcll prosecuted and Mr. G. G. "Watson defended, -• Sergeant Edwards said that at 3.45 p.m. on November 5 he noticed a crowd of about. 100 persons in front of the defen- ■ danfs premises, and traffic was obstrnct--1 ed. On investigating, he found that the cause of the crowd was the exhibition of ladies' stockings-and garters on certain females, who wore sitting in tho window of tho shop. All that, could ho seen were three pairs of legs, which were protnid- - ing, from a screen, which covered the bodies to within , about three inches above the knees. When spoken to defendant said, "What are our windows for?" and he then suwested that it was the ■ duty of the police to keep the crowd : moving. The slop was visited again' later and there was still a crowd present. To Mr. Watson: Witness admitted that . Conrtenay Place was a very wide, thoroughfare, but would not say that tho volume of traffic there was not as great • as in other parts of the eitv. On the day . following witness's inspection the defendant displayed a notice in the window intimating thnt if the crowd became excess'vo tho display would be stopped. Defendant had also taken other' steps to keep the footpath free for traffic. ' Cnristablo J. Hunt gave corroborative evidence. . Sergeant Lopd.ell nave evidence as to the. nature of the display. •'•. For the defence, Mr. Watson stated \hat the case was a most important one.' The whole point wa* the legality of tho shopkeeper to make effective displays, and in this case shoes and stocking, had been displayed on human legs, instead of on artificial ones.. As to the obstruction, counsel submitted that everv case must depend on circumstances. 'Similar-win-dow displays had >beon made in other parts of the world. Counsel - contended , tbat the display was nothing more than could be.seen on Lambton Qnnv, .and far less than at a fashionable ball. ' Tho, Magistrate: You don't suggest that you see ladies on.Lambton Quay showing as much of their legs as two or three inched above the knee? Counsel: One certainly sees them up .to the knees on occasions, ■■'■■'. The defendant said that he. had no Idea the action of the firm would have - caused a prosecution. He corroborated

the evidence of' the- police as to the-na-ture of the sho.Wi and also stated that he had taken steps to prevent a blockage en the footpath. Mrs. Edith Murphy considered that it was quite ensv for perrons to paxi on the footpath while tho display was in progress, and to her mind tho exhibition could not be considered objectionable. Andrew Williams, ftiuslc dealer, gave similar evidence. His Worship snid that it was not pnpr-pestod-thnt the disnlny was indecent, but It had apparently been a displnyof suoh a nature as to cause an obstruction. The weight of evidenco went to show that an' obstruction had been caused, and defendant would be fined £i and costs 7s.