POLICE DEFIED

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19903, 4 June 1936, Page 2

POLICE DEFIED

INSTRUCTIONS DISOBEYED.

VEHICLE BLOCKING TRAFFIC. (Times Representative.) TE A\\'A.\IUTU. \V’ednesday. A charge of failing to comply with lawful directions by a police officer at Te Awamutu was preferred against Thomas Hugh Kelly, of Arohena, in the Te Awamutu Magistrate‘s court this morning. Mr F. 11. Levien presided. It was stated that Kelly had been in charge of a motor vehicle on the Great South Road on April 22, which had been parked in such a way as to he an obstruction to other tramc, and Kelly had failed to remove it when asked to do so. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable J. Forsyth, conducting the case for the police. said that he had seen the vehicle parked near the Te ‘Awamutu Hotel. There was another {vehicle standing on the opposite side of the road and the traffic was obstructed. He had asked Kelly to remove the truck and had received a reply that defend—ant would park his vehicle where he ‘choae and for as long as he liked. Dc—‘i'Endant then returned to the ‘hotel. ‘The truck occupied 18ft. of the road‘way, which was 40ft. in width. Although he had been spoken to civilly Kelly had been ottensive. The defendant admitted the facts as outlined by Constable Forsyth. Corroborative evidence was given by Constable Uarseldine, who said that Kelly had adopted a dcilant attitude. Aooulod’s Evidence. In evidence, Kelly said the truck had been sent from llamilton and had been placed at the corner by the agent of the firm from which it had come. When he was spoken to he had not taken delivery af the vehicle and therefore was not the owner, let alone in charge of the truck. While it had been standing at the corner investigations were being made with regard to the terms of the transaction of sale. He contended that the officer had not asked him to remove the vehicle—he had merely asked defendant when he was going to shift it and defendant had replied that that was his business. The place at which the_vehicle was standing was a recognised parking place and vehicles were to be seen there at any time of the day. In reply to Mr Levien defendant said that he had just completed arrangements that day for the delivery or the truck. Delandant contended that the truck was parked at a correct angle and the cons stable had no right to order its re—moval,

llls \Vorshlp said that l: was no use taklng up a defiant attitude towards the police. Thelr duties were onerous and disagreeable enough as It was and such teeth-s only made them worse. This was the first case of Its klntl that had been brought before him. “ Many people are asked to shut vehleleu whlch are incorrectly parked and they comply wlth the request," sald Mr Levlen to Kelly. "If you had not been so lmpudent you probably would not 'lmye ‘conje before me."

Defending :vgs’ EBB-meted and was fined 30: 91d, posts.