HEAVY TRAFFIC BY-LAWS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 100, 13 September 1912, Page 6

HEAVY TRAFFIC BY-LAWS

MOA ROAD BOARD CASES. INTERESTING LAW POINTS. - A case tinder the Moa Road Board heavy traffic by-laws, in which considerable interest was centred was fought out in the Magistrate's Court at Inglewood, yesterday, between Mr. H. Thomson (counsel for the informant bodyl and Mr. R. Spence (counsel for the defendant), when James Tarry was charged with having driven a traction engine over the Motukawa road during the prohibited period. There was much "sparring" between counsel, mainly on account of Mr. Spence alleging that the by-law was being unfairly enforced and that the present prosecution was the outcome of feeling. Mr. Spence also intimated that his main ground of defence was that the by-law as a whole was ill-made. He also alleged that the Board had showed discrimination, >in that it allowed some engine-drivers to break the heavy traffic by-laws on the payment of a certain sum of money. Others who did not pay the money were prosecuted. This was denied by Mr. Trimble (chairman of the Board), who said that all the Board had done was to enter into a composition with drivers to indemnify it against any damage. Evidence was given by Wm. Bennett, an overseer in the employ of the Board, that on June 22 last he saw Tarry's engine on the Motukawa road. The engine did considerable damage to the road.

Without going into his various other grounds of defence, Mr. Spence asked that the case be dismissed, on the ground that no evidence had been called to show that Tarry had driven the engine or was in charge of it on the day in question. The overseer had simply stated that he had seen an engine on the road, which he presumed belonged to Tarry. Why had he not taken the number of the engine! Mr. Thompson asked leave to recall Bennett in order to supply, if possible, the requisite information, but this his Worship refused. He accordingly dismissed the case without prejudice to the Board bringing on any subsequent action. Costs amounting to £1 Is were allowed the defendant. TECHNICALITIES.

James Draper was similarly charged with having driven over the Egmont road on June 22. Evidence was given by a road foreman, and a laborer under his charge, that the defendant was in charge of the traction engine which had passed them on the road. The engine must have weighed more than five tons.

Without calling any evidence, Mr. iSpcnce raised several interesting technical points on behalf of the defendants. A fatal ground to the Board succeeding was, he said, the fact that it had neglected to produce a copy of the Gazette showing that the Egmont road was withinl its jurisdiction. No evidence had been produced to prove that the engine weighed five tons, the estimate of its weight being a sheer unadulterated Sfuess. Further, the Moa Road Board could only speak in Court by resolution or under its seal, and neither of these had been produced. Counsel also urged that the clerk to the Board was also devoid of any authority to prosecute. Traversing Mr. Spence's objection, Mr, Thomson submitted that it was ridiculous to suggest that in order to prove its case the Board would have to go hunting up old Gazettes, when they had the sworn testimony of the chairman that the road was in the Moa road district. As to weight, it was notorious that traction engines weighed five tons and over, but as there was no weighbridge in the district it was impossible to put the engine in question to the test. Mr. Thomson also ridiculed the suggestion that the chairman and the clerk were not sufficiently authorised to prosecute.

His Worship reserved judgment, intimating that he would give a written decision on October 10 on some of the points raised.