LOCAL BODIES IN LAW.

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 126, 1 April 1926, Page 4

LOCAL BODIES IN LAW.

NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE. County Road Roller Case. Unusual points were raised in a court case at Matarnata on Thursday, when the police (Constable T. Heaps) proceeded against “ The chairman and councillors and inhabitants of the county of Matarnata,” on two charges, one of having placed an obstruction, a road roller, on the Te Poi-Okoroire road, whereby life and limb was endangered, and a second for having failed to provide lights for the vehicle between the period of half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise, so attached as to display a light front and rear, visible at a reasonable distance. Similar charges were preferred against Joseph Townley, an employee of the council, and driver of the roller. Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., presided, and the council was represented by its solicitor, Mr. F. Lewis. Constable Heaps said that on the night of the accident he had inspected the vehicle, about a mile beyond the factory at Te Poi. The road roller was facing towards Okoroire. There was also a damaged car in the watertable alongside. There was -about 21 feet between the car and the roller; the latter had no lights. On the side the car was lying there was nine feet from the. roller to the bank, and Bft Gin on the other. To Mr. Lewis: The main lights of the car were not in working order, and the car was using- its parking lights. He. could not say whether the roller could have been shifted. Mr. Lewis admitted that Townley (the driver) left the rolldr on the road. He submitted, however, that the court could not take any action against the county, unless the chairman and councillors and inhabitants had been duly served; they could not he liable for a criminal action; the kind of service made was used only in civil cases. Mr. Lewis explained how the roller broke down and had to be left on the road, and that the driver was unable to get repairs effected to the part at Tirau. The vehicle could not be shifted until the broken piece was restored. The broken part was connected with the benzine transmission, and a light could not be used at nig-ht to effect repairs. The roller was legally on the road. Road rollers throughout the Dominion were left on the road, whether on the side of the- road or the middle was out of the question as far as the section of the Act applied. The roller was not left in a dangerous position, but in the middle of a straight county road, where it could be seen by any motorist taking proper care and precautions. Under the circumstances the fine should be only a nominal one.

His Worship: The fine for leaving vehicles on the road without lig-hts is £l. His Worship held that the “ chairman, councillors and inhabitants of the county of Matarnata ” could not be proceeded against on criminal charges, and dismissed the counts ag-ainst them but proceeded with those against Townley. Section 5 of the Police Offences Act reads:—

Every person is liable' to a fine not exceeding £2O, or for imprisonment for any term not exceeding- three months, or to both fine and imprisonment, who (a) Places any obstruction in or upon any public place, whereby life and limb is likely to be endangered. Mr. Lewis, replying to the magistrate’s reading- of the section applying to the placing- of an obstruction on the road, said the driver B could not be held guilty of manslaughter had a human being- been killed. Mr. Lewis contended that the placing of the vehicle on the road was not an offence under the Poli.ce Offences Act. The roller was legally on the road for the purpose of repairing the same; there was a distinction between placing- a vehicle on the road, leaving it on the road, and what happened afterwards as a result of placing it on the road, or leaving- it there. Joseph Townley, driver of the roller, gave evidence that the benzine pump broke. He got the mechanic up, and it was found that they had to go to Tirau for special tools to get it out; they then had to take the pump to Putaruru, about 16 miles away. The i-oller weighed ten tons, and could riot be shifted except under its own power. It was too late to effect repairs, as a naked light could not be used. There was six feet clearance on one side and 9 feet on the other. Someone had stolen the lamps, which had occurred on move than one occasion. Constable Heaps: You had three hours to get the roller fixed before dark ; you could come from Tirau within three-quarters of an hour. Witness said the job was longer than he expected. The county engi-

neer knew nothing- about the mishapat the time.. His Worship: Did you not realise that a lamp should have been put on ? Commonsense should have dictated the 3J purchasing of newVlamps, or borrow- / ing some."" As tfe f the leaving of the vehicle on the road without lights, this was, in. the circumstances, gross negligence on the part of the driver. He should have procured lamps from any source, have borrowed a lamp if necessary. However, the Act only provided a penalty of £l. “He will be convicted and. fined this amount. As to the other points, re the placing of a vehicle on the road, they are novel, and I will reserve my decision.” MAGISTRATE’S DECISIONThe Driver Convicted. Giving Ms reserved decision in the case of the police (Constable T. Heeps, of Matarnata) versus Joseph Townley, Tirau, in regard to what is known as m the “ County Road Roller Case,” His I Worship, Mr. John H. Salmon, S-M., 'stated;— j “ The defendant is charged under- ■ section 5 (a) of the Police Offences' Aqt, 1908, that ‘ on the 17th day of December, 1925, he did place an obstruction in or upon a public place, to wit, the main Te Poi-Okoroire road, | whereby life or limb was likely to be endangered.’ “ The defendant on the date in question was the driver of and in charge of a motor road roller, the property of a local authority, and such I roller-was being used on the said road for its ordinary and proper purposes. About noon on that date an important ' part of the machinery (the benzine pump) broke, and the defendant was unable to move the said roller under its own power. He left the roller apI proximately in the middle of the road, l and took the broken part of the maj cMnery to Tirau, intending to get it repaired. He was unable to get it repaired in Tirau, and thereupon took it on to Putaruru. By the time he got it repaired it was after five o’clock in the evening, and by the time he had returned: to Tirau, where he lives, it was about 6 p.m. He states that it was no use returning with the mended part of the machinery to repair the roller in the dark, as it was impossible for him to work on the- benzine pump with a naked light. I “He 'did not return the roller I that night, and the roller was left unj lighted in the middle of the road all night. Defendant was also charged j under section 2, sub-section (1) of the Lig-hts on Velucles Act, 1915, and has | pleaded guilty to the charge ot leaving the roller unlighted, and tne maxlj mum fine in the case of a first offence j has been imposed with costs. “ Sometime on the night on the 17th I December, before 11 p.m., a party in a motor car coming from the direction ' .of Okoroire towards Te Poi coming * upon the unlighted roller swerved to | avoid it, and the car was damaged. It is stated that the distance between the | side of the roller and the bank on one side was Bft 6in, and on the other side 1 9ft, but for some feet out from the bank across the water-table there is ! a growth of young- manuka and fern. | There is no doubt that the leaving of the roller in this position in the circumstances was an act whereby life or limb was likely to be endangered. It is contended, however, that i the defendant had the rollerupon the road for a lawful purpose in the first instance; that the roller was in a place where it was' entitled to be; that an accident occurred to the machinery whereby defendant was prevented from being able to move the roller; the roller is stated to weigh 10 ' tons; that the section under which defendant is charged uses the word ‘ placed ’ and that the defendant did not place the roller there. “ The argument appears to be based upon the difference between ‘ placing- ’ '\r an obstruction on the road and * leaving ’ an obstruction on the road. A person may be lawfully proceeding along a road with something which is not an obstruction until it is left there. Such act, I think, constitutes placing. In my opinion the section covers the charge and the circumstances. A thing to be placed as an obstruction must also be left. It is not denied by defendant that he could have moved the roller to one side of the road if he had obtained a sufficient number of horses, but that couirse does not appear to have occurred to the defendant. I think that defendant must be convicted, but as the gravamen of the charge was really leaving this obstruction unlighted, and as he has already been penalised . for that offence, it will he sufficient to convict and impose a fine of £1 and costs 75.” 4