VALIDITY OF OFF-SIDE RULE

Evening Star, Issue 21748, 16 June 1934, Page 19

VALIDITY OF OFF-SIDE RULE

MAGISTRATE AMENDS CHARGE IMPORTANT DECISION FOR MOTORISTS A case of considerable interest to motorists was heard before the Police Court this morning,. when Robert Ernest Richardson was charged with, failing to give way to a car approaching on_ the right when crossing an intersection. The magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) intimated that he did not think the charge could succeed unless the new amendment to the motor, regulations was made retrospective.He amended _ the charge to one of negligent driving, dismissing the information subject to payment of expenses.The magistrate said that if there were any other charges of failing to give way to traffic on the right informations of negligent driving should be laid. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr W. D. Taylor. Senior-sergeant Mac Lean, who 1 prosecuted, said that the accident occurred, in _ broad daylight, A motor car was being driven by-a man named Paulino along the Main - South road, going, north, when a car came down Leckhampton court, and, according to the driver of the latter car, _ when about 18ft from tbe intersection, he was struck by the car travelling north. He himself was travelling, about live or six miles an hour, and as his brakes were in good order, could have stopped almost instantly. ; Ho saw _ the other car about 30yds away," and it was then going at a terrific speed. It was contended, however, that there was no, necessity for a collision, and that this was a clear case of failing to give way. Robert Pauline said that on May 16 he was driving a motor car from Brighton to Dunedin along the Main South road. About 12.20 p.m., just as the car was passing under the overhead bridge, the 'defendants car turned on to the Main South road from Leckhampton Court. Witness, who was travelling at a speed of about eighteen, miles per hour, immediately applied his brakes, but, although these were in good order, he had no chance_ of stopping bis car before a collision took place. The defendant turned on to the road without giving any warning, and instead .of going straight across the road cut diagonally across it, the collision taking place almost directly under the overhead bridge., Witness was on his correct side, at the time of the accident.

Samuel Taylor, a dairy fanner of Brighton, said that he owned the car driven by the previous', witness, who worked for witness. Taylor said tha*fc ’ he was in the back seat of the car when the accident occurred, and he gave further evidence along the lines of tho previous witness. The evidence of Constable Elms detailed measurements taken after tho accident.

Mr Taylor said'that the -defendant’s case was that as the defendant was proceeding out of Leckhampton Court at a speed of about six miles per hour, as his engine was crossing the footway, he saw the car, driven by Paulinfe, ap- ' preaching from the far side of tho bridge. Defendant considered he had ample time to get across, and coasted along, taking a good wide turn; Paulino, suddenly swerved to.bis right, whereas if he had kept the course he was on he would have, been able to go behind Richardson quite safely.. If the magistrate ruled against defendant on the facts, Mr'Taylor added, e would rely on the question of the validity,Of the regulations, as held by Mr Maunsell, S.M. . The Magistrate intimated that if ho found that defendant had failed do give way to traffic coming on his right he might amend the charge to one of negligent driving. He did not think tho present charge could succeed unless tho new amendfnen’t' to the motor regulations were- made • restrospective. ■> The defendant, gave evidence along the lines outlined fay his counsel, and Charles Edward Richardson, a brother of- the defendant, also gave evidence. , The Magistrate said he, thought vc was, clear that, as laid, the charge could not stand. Tho only matter for his consideration was whether the facts disclosed such a state of affairs that lie should order an amendment of the" information to one of negligent driving or’any other offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. After reviewing the evidence" His. Worship said that had defendant gone across fast or, had be accelerated it would probably have been all right, but lie put the blame on Paulino. ,Ho said that Pauline did not keep straight and veered over to the right, and a collision took place somewhere about the tramline. _ Pauline must have travelled about 75ft while defendant was travelling about 20tt. Defendant was travelling at such slow speed that His Worship said ho could not understand why he did not stop when ho saw the other car coming. Ha had 'been guilty of negligence as he did cross. Tho prosecution had not laid a charge of negligent driving, and under tho present state of affairs—owing to the validity of the “ off-side rule having been questioned and held to be ultra vires—he thought his propel 1 course was to alter .it to one of negligent driving. .' ’ The case would be met by dismissing the charge, subject to payment of expenses (£1 16s 6d). The Magistrate said that if. there were any other charges of failing .to give way to traffic on the right informations of negligent driving should be laid. . Tho Senior-sergeant said that that was being done for the future.