BLOCK IN MANNERS STREET

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 3, 28 September 1921, Page 6

BLOCK IN MANNERS STREET

TRAMWAY AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IMPEDED POLICE PROSECUTION OF A SHOPKEEPER FAILS If a shopkeeper through good newspaper advertising draws a crowd to his shop and thus causes the street traffic to be impeded he is not guilty of any offence according to a Magisterial ruling given yesterday. Henry Scbneideinan was charged in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr. F. K. Hunt S.M., '“that on September 2 he did do an act, to wit, the exhibition in the window of his shop, 9G Manners Street, of a placard quoting that men's suits were' to bo sold at very cheap prices on that day, in consequence whereof other persons were induced to collect in Manners Street so as to impede the traffic in such street.” Sergeant O’Hara appeared for the police and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for the defendant. Sergeant O’lLara said t.liat the information was laid under by-law No. 1, clause 14. The street was blocked from 8 a.m. until past 9 a.m. Tho footpath was absolutely blocked, and the people were standing in tho street right on to tho tramrails. Tho defendant apparently anticipated a crowd as the result, of the placard in his window, on which it was stated that two suits would be sold at half-a-crown each, some at hnlf-a-guinea, .and so on, for he had his windows boarded up. Because of tho crowd, pedestrians had to use the street and walk on the tramline at some risk to themselves. People Wait All Night. Sergeant Scott in evidence said that at 5 o’clock in tho morning he sawseveral persons waiting near the shop. As a matter of fact, they were there all night, and among them was a woman Shortly before 8 a.m. there was a crowd of over 100 persons, and they spread over the street right on to the tramline. Two or three tramcars were obliged to pull up because of the crowd. Pedestrians had to leave the footpath and go on to the tramline to pass the crowd. This was going on from 8 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. Witness had to place a constable in front of the shop to keep the crowd clear of the footpath. Ho thought it was betier to let the crowd take the risks of the street than that pedestrians who had no interest in the shop should do so. Tho windows of the shop were boardod up, but in spite of this damage was done. Witness s Pcb® to the defendant, who said he had thought of engaging two constables off duty to keep the crowd back, but. had not done so. Witness was of opinion 'that the crowd created a danger for pedestrians, who were obliged to use the road because the footpath was blocked. •To Mr. "Mazengahb: He went inside the shop, but could not get out again by the front door, and was forced to-get out at the back. He had known of previous sales drawing big crowds but he could not remember any prosecutions for causing a blockage of the footpath. Constable King who was ordered to keen the crowd hack, and Sergeant O’Hara gave corroborative evidence. The Defence. For the defence Mr. Mazengarb said that twelve months ago the most prominent actions in the Court were those in which merchants and shopkeepers were charged with selling goods at unreasonably high prices. Tho antithesis of that was tho charge against his client for offering suits for sale at prices that were so abnormally low as to attract a large number of (buyers. It could not be suggested that' there was anything illusory in the sale. The method of advertising adopted was neither unfair nor improper. The attention of the hundreds of people who sought admission to the shoo was not. gained by the exhibition of an effigy or the crude display of an anatomical specimen. There was merely the exhibition of men s suits and the announcement of the prices nt which they were offered. Nor did it appear that the crowd of buyers was drawn by the announcement in the window. The sale was advertised in the (newspapers and circulars were freely distributed. Possibly nine-tenths Of the people were present as a result of this advertising' and probably had not even seen the placard in the window. It was a material part of the case for ths police that the crowd had been attracted by the window notification of the sale. That had not been shown. Furthermore, it was not sufficient to prove that the traffic was blocked as a result of the window announcement; it must follow as the immediate consequence of that announcement. It was obvious that the crowd had gathered out of a desire to get the bargains and' not merely to tos the placard in the window The defendant frankly acknowledged to the police his responsibility’ for. the sale, but counsel contended that m law the impeding of the traffic in the street was too remote .a consequence of tho defendant’s act. He was not to know that tho desire for cheap suits would cause an obstruction of traffic in Manners Street, for it was quite open to other traders to follow suit. Had they done so tho traffic would have been more evenly distributed through the city. Evon if Mr. Schneideman had known that his offer would obstruct the traffic, the decision in Beatty v. Gillbanks was a direct authority showing that ho could not. be convicted. , ~ Mr Mazengarb contended that the prosecution must, fail because—(D The offer of suits at cheap prices was a lawful and -laudable act; (2) even if It '•nused others to block the traffic, the offence was that of the crowd and not of the defendant: (3) there was no proof ithat the crowd was drawn by the placard in the window; (4) the assembling of the crowd was, in law, Joo remote a consequence of the act: (5) there was no aulhoritv on record showing ’his tn be an offence: nnd (6) if the bylaw .sought to interfere with the business of having and selling and to prevent, undercutting of prices it was void. Information Dismissed. The Magistrate said that he had to find that the defendant had done something definite in his shop before he could convict him. Ho considered that defendant had done nothing illegal. Every shopkeeper wanted to draw n crowd in these days. However, he considered that the police were perfectly justified in studying the interests of the public by trying to prevent the congestion of traffic in the streets. In the circumstances of the present case Ro found that nothing serious had been done, and he would therefore dismiss the information.