NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5277, 21 May 1928, Page 2

NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

SEQUEL TO SPEED TRAP.

ECHO OF SUPREME COURT CASE.

Following on the setting of a speed trap for motorists on Thames Road on October 24 last, the Paeroa Borough Council by-laws have been severely attacked, but have come through with dying colours. The clay chosen to set the trap was Labour Day—?, holiday. There were also races ueing held at Cambridge. Four motorists were caught by the borough officials exceeding the- speed limit, and they duly appeared before the local Magistrate’s Court on December 5.

At that sitting Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., heard considerable evidence, and in the one case, that of J. E. Davis, he inflicted a conviction and line of £5 Is, so as to enable an appeal to be ■made. In the remaining three cases the magistrate reserved his- decision pending the d’sposal of the appeal.

On May 3 the appeal was heard by Mr Justice McGregor at the Supreme Court. Auckland, and the magistrate’s decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed will costs.

The result of the appqal had Us sequel at the local Magistrate's Court on Friday, before Mr PH/itts. .S.M., when W. P. Pennell, Paeroa, James McCormick. Matatoki. and Roy Bedford, Turua. appeared to answer the charge of negligently driving a, motorcar on October 24. 1927. along Thames Road, within the borough of Paeroa, contrary to sect'on 15. part 8. of the Borough Council by-laws, which reads : “No person shall furiously or negligently drive a. motor-car or motor-cycle through any street or private street in the; borough.” Mr R. S. Carden appeared for the defendants, and Mr. C. N. O’Neill for. the Borough Council. ■Mr Carden asked that the breaches be treated as technical offences, only. He a.lso drew attention to the fact that as the result of thq Supreme Court decision the Paeroa Borough Council particularly, and' other local authorities generally, had gained valuable information. It wa.s the first ease that had been, laid under the bylaw, and it was not as if a flagrant breach had been committed. He would ask that in view of all the circumstances a nominal penalty only be inflicted.

Mr .O’Neill said that he; did not press for a heavy penalty, but would point out that convictions with attendaart lines did not compensate the Borough Council’s expenses for officials, loss of time, etc. The magistrate agreed, and said that no doubt the local bodies had: received valuable information, but it had to be taken, into consideration tha.t they had had' to pay dearly for it. Convictions would be entered in each case, and Pennell would be fined £l, with costs £2 Is ; McCormick, £2, with costs £2 3s; and Bedford', £l. with costs £2 3s.