MOTORING WITHOUT LIGHTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1058, 1 February 1913, Page 3

MOTORING WITHOUT LIGHTS.

ALLEGED BREACH OF REGULATIONS.

JUDGMENT RESE RVED.

At the Magistrate's court yesterday the police charged Frederick Spencer Easton with a bread; of the motor regulations, by driving his motor car on the 18th instant after sunset without a light. Constable Woods conducted the case on behalf of the police, and Mr Cooper appeared for defendant. Constable Sweeney in evidence stated that at 7.55 o’clock on the evening in question, when in the company of Constable Woods he saw the defendant drive his motor car along Main Street, without ligh's. He was going in the direction of his home. It was dark at the time, the sun having set at about 7.20 o’clock. To Mr Cooper: He fixed the lime by his watch, and also by the post office clock, and was prepared to swear to it. Had not seen other vehicles being driven without lights after dark neither had his attention been drawn to them. Did not bear any enmity towards Easton, was not continually on the look out to “ land" him and had not stated that he would be the means of costing him money. Was just able to distinguish Easton and his car on the night in question. The street lamps were not alight that night, but the moon was not up. Would not prosecute anyone for driving without lights 10 or 15 minutes after sunset. He knew the manager of the Bank of New Zealand and also Mrs Seabury, and as far as he knew they were both reliable, and had no reason to suppose they would not be truthful witnesses. Constable Woods stated that on the night in question in company with Constable Sweeney he passed down the street at 20 minutes to eight. Defendant’s car was drawn up, and he was speaking to Mrs Seabury, and Mr aud Mrs Witched. Witness and Constable Sweeney went down as far as the Family Hotel stables, and when they returned it was five minutes to eight. Just then Easton passed in his car on his way home. There were no lights on the car, and it was dark at the time.

To Mr Cooper ; On the night in question the sun set at about 20 past seven. He would not prosecute anyone for driving without lights within ten minutes after sunset. The night in question was a moonlight one. The street lamps were not alight, but it was the custom of the Council not to light the street lamps on certain nights in each month. He had nothing against Easton and had not said that he (witness) would make the “king” spend some money. Did recommend to the Licensing Committee the hotel owned by him should be painted, as it had not been done for seven years. Several prosecutions had been taken during the last 18 mouths against persons riding bicycles without lights. There were no prosecutions in that period in respect to vehicles, Would have prosecuted any motor car owner had he seen them driving without lights, as it was very dangerous, but might make some allowance for traps. Had not done anything with the intention of humiliating Easton, but Easton had done things with the intention of humiliating witness.* Questioned as to the mode of serving a previous'summons which had been served on Easton at a meeting of stewards ot the local Racing Club, witness denied going to the door of the office aud saying, “Here’s a summons for you, Easton.” What happened was that he went to the door, which was opened by Mr Stuuell, one of the Stewards. Witness asked if Mr Easton was in and that he wished to speak to him. Easton came to the door aud said, “Well black ’un, what do you want now.” Witness said, “Get down off the step and say that,” Easton then said, “Well nigger, what do you want with me?” Witness said; “Here’s a summons for you ; why don’t you pay your debts ?” Did not charge mileage on the summons in question.

This closed the case for the prosecution aud Mr Cooper submitted the case must fail for several reasons. First aud foremost it was a trivial matter aud next door to an abuse of Court proceedings. He quoted portions of the Motor Regulations Act, contending that although it was laid dowu that a motor should not be driven after dark without a light it did not lay it down as an offence or provide for any penally. Further, there was no evidence as to the weight of the car, and this was necessary in order to prove that it was a motor car vyithin the meaning of the Act, He quoted a decision given in Napier on these grounds in which the case bad been dismissed. He also contended they had a good case for dismissal on the merits, and would call evidence to prove that the time was not later than halfpast seven. The sun set on the night in question at 7.36 o’clock. The Magistrate said he would look into the objections raised by Mr Cooper and reserved judgment on these points. He said if there was a defect in the Act it should be remedied without delay, as it was a serious thing ior motor cars to be driven after dark without lights. Mr Cooper then called the defendant, F. S. Easton, who stated that on the evening in question he arfiyed home from Foxcon at 20 minutes to eight. It would take from eight to ten minutes to drive from Foxtou to his home, so that at the latent he would not

have been in Main Stfeet after half-past seven. The lamps were on the car, and had it been necessary he would certainly have lit them, Mrs Easton- aud their child were in the car with him, and whilst, in Foxi.cn they were speakingly MrsSeauui> atm Mr aud Mrs WRcheil. To Coustable Woods : Was in Palmerston in the afternoon of January 18th, and left there at 6.10 o’clock. It would take .>outu an hour to drive to Poston. He slopped the car opposite Mrs Nye’s shop. Could not say how long he was speaking to Mrs Seabury. Did not see him (Woods) go down the street or see him standing in front of the Post Office. Didn’t think he was there. Didn’t recognise Woods as lie was too much of a disgrace lu lue force. The Magistrate told the witness not to be offensive, but to simply answer the questions.

Under further cross-examination by the police, witness said the shops were lighted up when he was in Foxton. If it had been dark he would not have taken any risks.

To Mr Cooper: He recognised it was dangerous to drive without lights at night, both to others aud also himself. He had just bought the car lor ,£350. Henry Witchell stated that he was speaking to Easton on the evening in question. He had dinner at 6 o’clock, aud afterwards went down to the old bank premises and fed his dog. This would take perhaps five or ten minutes. When he came out he saw Easton’s car about 5o yards up the street. He told his wife to go up and speak to Mrs Easton, and he went down to the temporary premises of the bank, aud turned a key in one of the locks, aud then went aud joined his wife who was speaking to Mrs,Easton. Did not particularly notice the time, but would be very surprised if it was 7.55 p.m. After Easton went away in the car witness and his wile strolled as far as Victoria Park, and when they returned to the hotel it was only a few minutes past eight. He considered that Easton left Foxton before halfpast seven. To Constable Woods : Did not see the police that night. Did not look at the time when he was in the bank as there was no clock there.

Mary Elizabeth Seabury said on the evening in question she was speaking to Mr aud Mrs Easton. When she left them- to go to the pictures they were talking to Mr aud Mrs Witcbell. Wheu she got iu the hall it was between tweuty and a quarter to eight. To Ccustable Woods ; Witness was talking to Mr and Mrs Easton iu Main street that night for five or ten minutes. After she left them she was iu Collins’ shop aud it was then hall-past seven. Didn't know what time Mr Easton left for his home.

The Magistrate reserved his decision.