MOTOR REGULATION

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10719, 12 October 1912, Page 5

MOTOR REGULATION

AND lU)IUH"QH UY-LAWS. in the Magistrate's Court at Masters vesterday, P. L. Rollings was charged with a breacli of section 1' of tTie Mastei ton Uorough by-laws, with allowing his motor car to remain in the street at night without a light. Mr Boilings admitted the offence He stated, however, that he had been engaged in the Supremo Court all day, and up till ten o'clock at night, and had quite forgotten that he had left his car outside the Courthouse. He thought tiiat, iu the circumstances. Lite police might have reminded him that, his ear was standing without a light, or might oven ha\o lighted the lamps themselves. Mr Hoi Lings further raided the legal objection that.-, lie was not liable, under the by-laws* He claimed that a mo--1 or car was not a "vehicle" as described in the by-laws. Tne by-laws had been framed in I'.'Ot. and the Motor Regulation Act had not been passed until IMS#. Before an offence could be established, the by-laws would have to be altered to bring them under the Motor Regulation Act. FTe | understood that the by-laws were at | present Icing altered in the direction indicated. He should have been prosecuted under the Motor Regulation Act. His Worship: Then a motor ear can be driven without lights. Mr Rollings submitted that it could under the by-laws as at present constituted. He asked if a perambulator could be regarded as a vehicle. His Worship said that, without, enlering into Ihe lei;al aspect of tho f|Uestion. he regarded the case as a trivial one. The fact that the car was in the street wa.s purely an' oversight. Tho information would therefore bo dismissed. ' So (far ajj tho legal point was concerned, he was inclined to think that a motor ear < was a "vehicle." under the hv-laws.