IS IT OBSTRUCTION?

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 701, 28 June 1929, Page 11

IS IT OBSTRUCTION?

CONTRACTOR’S PLANT LEFT ON ROAD Whether a contractor’s plant left on a road on which work was going on constituted an obstruction endangering life and limb was a question put to Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court this morning. CAMUBIi DIBBLE faced four charges, all the offences being said to have been committed on Ma; 23 and June 2. Tw u charges were of leaving a tractor, concrete-mixer and dray in Richardson Road so as to endanger life and limb. The other two counts were of leaving excavations unfenced. According to Sub-Inspector McCarthy, defendant was engaged on the construction of a mile of concrete road past the Mount Albert tram terminus. He had excavated on both sides of the road leaving a strip in the middle, and his plant was left on the road. Excavations along the footpaths were not protected. The road was in use by both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. “He seems to think that because he is working for a local body there is no need to worry,” commented the subinspector. “Some unfortunate motorist will come to a sudden stop against the concrete-mixer some night.” Dibble explained that the road was legally closed. The Sub-Inspector: I was through it in a car only a week ago. Dibble: It is used by permission only. A week's adjournment was ordered by the magistrate, so that it could be ascertained from the clerk of the Mount Albert Borough Council whether the road was legally closed.