THE DEADLY HATPIN.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1112, 21 June 1913, Page 4

THE DEADLY HATPIN.

AMUSING SCENES

OFFENDERS IN COURT. Invercargill, June 13. The hatpin by-law, the validity of which was questioned in the Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday, was further discussed before Mr G. Cruickshahk, S.M., yesterday, when the case in which the question arose was again called. Mr C. S. Eonguet, the borough solicitor, appeared for the Tramway Department, and the first plaintiff was represented by Mr E. Russell.

Mr Eonguet asked for permission to alter the information which had been set out in error. He wished to delete the words, “which in the opinion of the conductor.” His Worship would see that the first words of the by-law, ;“No person whilst on or in a car shall wear any hatpin with the point projecting,” made quite a distinct offence without the latter portion of the by-law. His Worship said that he was not prepared to alter the information, but he would bear Mr Eonguet’s point in mind. Mr Eonguet went on to state that the grammatical construction of the by-law was perfectly clear, and that the two conditions in it were capable of being severed. Even if there were two constructions, his Worship was entitled to take the most reasonable one. The by-law was perfectly clear as to its meaning, and while exception might be taken to it by a few silly girls, he thought that even a suffragette would approve of it. His Worship said that if the pin came the smallest possible length through the hat it would, according to Mr Eouguet’s interpretation, constitute an offence. Mr Eonguet asked why it should not be so. The law, however; allowed for a reasonable construction to be put upon a by-law, and in that case he took that the Court would not undertake that the by-law was unreasonable. That was generally left to a higher Court. In any case the Tramway Act gave the very widest powers for the making of by-laws.

His Worship asked whether the words “which in the opinion of the conductor’ were meant to apply to the section “or any article or ornament.”

Mr Eonguet said that such was the case, remarking that he did not see that it was capable of any other construction.

His Worship : The by-law says, “with the point projecting,” but it does not say that the point must project through the hat, or even the brim.

Mr Eonguet : It would take a long instrument, almost a spear, to project over the rim of some of the hats.

His Worship : Then the only course is for the ladies to wear protectors ? Mr Eonguet: Exactly. I submit that the by-law is so plain that this Court will not take the responsibility of saying that it is unreasonable. Mr Russell admitted the tacts of the case, and said that he had only been instructed a short while before the sitting of the Court on Wednesday. On looking into the by-law, it appeared that it was divisible, but he still contended that the latter portion, which gave authority to the conductor, was ultra vires. As to whether the first portion was unreasonable, he thought that he could show the Court that it was. That portion of the by-law practically prohibited the use of hatpins without protectors by passengers on the municipal tramcars. Hatpins had been worn by women since time immemorial for the purpose of keeping their bats on. His Worship; I do not know whether Eve wore hatpins. MrEouguet: ! do not think that she even wore a bat. Mr Russell went on to submit that the portion of the by-law under which the information was laid was unreasonable, and that it would not have been so had it provided that no one should wear hatpins of such a nature as to cause injury to other passengers. As it was, however, it gave power to proceed in cases where the pin projected ever so little. In replying, Mr Eouguet said that the leading authorities were agreed that a Magistrate could not take the responsibility of saying that a by-law was. unreasonable. A by-law prohibiting unprotected hatpins would have teen reasonable were it even applied to the street, and it was simply necessary in regard to the cais.

His Worship ; It simply means that they must either wear protectors or a piece of elastic unde? their chins.

Mr Longuet: They must wear

protectors. His Worship: Then, if they remove their hatpins they must have a glass to put them on again. Mr Eonguet: Oh, no! They are pretty expert. His Worship said that he had considered the matter, and was satisfied that the section under which the information was laid was reasonable, although he did not think so when he first looked into the matter. It' was simply tantamount to saying that no one was allowed on a car with projecting hatpins. The proceedings thus far provided a great deal of amusement to the four or five of the twelve defendants who had put in an appearance, and they were often unrestrained in their mirth. Mr Russell said that the defendant for whom he appeared was a stranger to town, having come from Timaru the evening preceding the breach.

She was convicted and dis charged.

The first of the defendants to face the Bench wore a straw sailor hat, which was adorned with two pins, the points of which were covered . by protectors. She pleaded that when her name was taken her hatpins had not been projecting, but had been driven at an angle through the crown and into the brim of her hat.

The Magistrate expressed a desire to see a demonstration, which the lady gave without hesitation. Inspector Colyer gave evidence, and, in answer to the Magistrate, said that he did not ask the defendant to remove her hatpins. The Magistrate : I think that conductors should give plenty of warning, A lady might be carrying her protectors i n her pocket. Conductors might even sell hatpin protectors for a trifle. The defendant was convicted and discharged.

Another sent her husband to answer the charge, and he stated that no warning had been given, A fine of 5s without costs was inflicted.

A small mild-mannered lady, who wore a round toque with an osprey, pleaded that she was unaware that the by-law bad been put in force, and was convicted and discharged. As she left the Court, she was counselled by the Magistrate to go straight away and buy protectors.