MUST BE RESPECTED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 944, 10 April 1930, Page 12

MUST BE RESPECTED

TRAFFIC INSPECTORS’ AUTHORITY AUTO CLUB LOSES APPEAL “Unless the authority of traffic inspectors is properly respected, and unless they are given proper protection in the exercise of their authority, the regulations under the Motor Vehicles Act would be of little use.” Mr. Justice Herdman made this comment in a reserved judgment, delivered in the Supreme Court today, in dismissing an appeal by the Auckland Automobile Racing Club against a conviction by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., on a charge of obstructing, hindering and interfering with the Otahuhu traffic inspector in the exercise of his powers. - The conviction was the result of refusal by the company’s officials to comply with the traffic inspector’s orders to remove ticket-sellers, who were stationed on the road selling rckets to car-loads of passengers going to the motor races at the Mangere speedway on December 14 last year. The inspector had previously granted the club permission for ticket-selling on the road, but because or tne threatened congestion of traffic the inspector ordered the removal of the ticket-sellers, but the officials and the company declined and ordered the men to continue selling. The point for decision, said his Honour, was whether a company could be convicted of an offence of this kind A company, he said, had no corporeal existence, but, according to the Acts Interpretation Act, a “body corporate was included in the construction of enactments relating to offences punishable summarily.” Regulation 2 involved in this case had been devised for disciplining drivers of cars. The interference -with the traffic inspector originated with those who controlled the company’s affairs, while the ticket-sellers aided and abetted. . Pointing out that one of the objects of the regulations under the Act was to regulate motor traffic, his Honour added:— The duty imposed is not to interfere with a traffic inspector in the exercise of powers which are of necessity wide, and that duty is imposed upon all members of the community. If a person commits an offence through the medium of his agent or servait l cannot see why he should not be held liable, and if a company offends against the regulations through the medium of servants, I think that it commits an act, which has been absolutely forbidden because the Degislature has thought it important to pre\ent the act from being committed bv anybody.” Mr. Holmden appeared for the appellant and Mr. Prendergast for the respondent.