Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201833700100104 |
| Published date | 01 January 1937 |
| Date | 01 January 1937 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional
Court
Cases
TRAFFIC
SIGN"
HALT AT MAJOR ROAD
AHEAD"
Brooks v. Jefferies,. Tolhurst v. Webster
TWO
cases before the Divisional Court have recently been
decided which both refer to the traffic sign placed upon
a road in accordance with section 49 of the Road Traffic Act,
1930. Section 49 provides
that
where a police constable is
for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a
road or where any traffic sign, being a sign for regulating the
movement of traffic or indicating a road to be followed by
traffic, has been lawfully placed on or near any road in
accordance with the preceding section (No. 48), any person
driving or propelling any vehicle who (a) neglects or refuses
to stop a vehicle or to make it proceed to a particular line of
traffic when directed so to do by
the
police constable in the
execution of his duty, or
(b)
fails to conform to the indication
given by the sign, shall be guilty of an offence, and
under
section 113 of the Act the maximum penalty is a fine not
exceeding
£20
for the first offence.
The
two High Court
cases were Brooks v. Jefferies and Tolhurst v. Webster.
In
Brooks v. Jefferies, decided on the zoth October, 1936,
a traffic sign had been placed upon a road with the words upon
it " Halt at Major Road
Ahead".
The
word"
Halt"
was
in large letters, the remaining words were much smaller.
The
driver of the car had been acquitted by the Justices on
the ground that
the
defendant had stopped at the Halt post,
and had then proceeded slowly and cautiously.
The
judgment
of the
Lord
Chief Justice was in the following
words:
"The
case is too plain for argument.
The
Justices have not
found
that
the sign was erected in a way which did not comply
64
To continue reading
Request your trial