Haywood v Mumford [1908] HCA 62

7CLR.] OF AUSTRALIA.

Solicitor, for appellant, Zhe Crown Solicitor for New South H.C. or A.

Wales. 1908, ~

Solicitors, for respondents, Curtiss & Barry; Stephen, Jaques avronxey- & Stephen; Maenamara & Smith; Sly & Russell; Villenewve PVR Smith & Dawes.

v% Apams.

Cc. A. W.

Sons FF OR ITS Appl Livwrence v A) 210

RC

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

HAYWOOD AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS,

APPELLANTS ;

AND

MUMFORD RESPONDENT.

INFORMANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Highway—Obstruction—Standing or loitering in street and not moving on when H. C. or A.

requested—Collecting a crowd—Interference with traffic—By-law—Police 1908. Offences Act 1890 (Vict.), (No. 1126), sec. 6*. —

Mxxvouryg,

'The term ** obstruction" as used in sec. 6 of the Police Ofences Act 1890 October 5, 6, (Vict.) includes any continuous physical occupation of portion of a street

Which appreciably diminishes the space available for passing and repassing, Grinth ©, arton,

or which renders such passing and repassing less commodious, whether or not any person is in fact affected thereby, and the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the obstruction, considered apart from the Act, is immaterial.

O'Connor and Higgins JJ.

'The two defendants, at about half-past six on a summer's evening, stood in the carriage way of a street of Sale playing a drum and a concertina and

*Sec. 6 of the Police Offences Act 1890 (Vict.), so far as material, is as

follows :—

" Any local authority may from time to time make regulations for the route to be observed by all carriages carts

vehicles and persons and for keepin order in the carriage and foot ways an public places of any city town or borough and for preventing any obstruction thereof whether by the assemblage of persons or otherwise."

H.C. or A.

1908, ee Haywoop v. Momrorp.

HIGH COURT (1908,

singing, and thereby collected crowd of about 80 persons, and they refused to move on when requested to do so by a police officer. The magistrate found that there was no actual interference with the traffic and that the defendants were not making an unreasonable use of the street, but that their acts brought together a crowd which was likely to-cause an obstruction of the street.