The Atherstone, Nuneaton, and Warwickshire Times. — 1887-11-12 (Atherstone, Warwickshire, England)

THE LAW OF MEETH HIER WAY.  • -Aro there is just Dow an much discutaion on the eubject of holding ineetinge on the highways, and et the allegid right to bold such meeting, it so ttrongly nseeret, it may be useful tcits the lateet recorded judgment on the contention. The case was that of •f klomer, appalls. v. Cadman, respondent;' times heard in the Court of Queen's Bench, March 12, 1886, bifore Justice. Mathew mil A. Is Smith, and ie mported in the Jusfice of the Peace for July 17, 1586. On September 12, 1885, Mr. F. A. Hoiner, the appellant, held a nie“ing of the Salvation Army in the 801 l Ring, Sedgley. He had a band of mmic with hien, and a crowd, eetimated at from 150 to 200 people, gathered round him on the highway. The appellant stood Nam a chair, sod spoke to the assembly for more than an hour. Mr. Homer being eummoned before the stipendiary magistrate fcr the district, wae oonvicmd, and fined, for obstructing the highway. Mr. Homer appee'ed. and the magistrate I stated a mee for the Queso's 13eneh. The care detcribed the Bull-riug ae a public highway. in the forge of an irregular triangle, cod as a spot at which six highways converge. Then, after reciting the proceedings of the appellant, the ease gees on to say that while be was speaking "no permit mold, without considerable inconvenience and &liner. have either walked or driven across that part of the highway were the delendset and hit band and crowd were etationed ; and the esid highway wee thereby, during such period, rendered lees commodious aod convenient to the politic. There was, however, space outeide the Paid crowd, and between it and the footpaths, for vehicles or foot-pssrengere t pose or repass. It was therefore contended, on behalf of the defendant, that inasmuch es there wss a pasaage for foot paseengere, horses, and vehicles round the apace occupied by the crowd. there was no obetruction within the meaning of the 72.01 sect. of 5 aud 6 Wm. IV., c. 50 and further that the defendant bail a right to hold the said mmting on the said highway, to low as there was a passage round the imid crowd for foot passengers, horses, and vehicles.. The Highway Act above cited enaci• that if any person shall wilfully obstruct the passage of any loot. path or shall in any way wilfully obstruct the fres passsge of auy such highway, he shall be liable to • fine of 40,. On the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant contended hat he did not obttruct the highway merely becsuee a cro.rd collected round him. In givang judgmeur Mr. Juatice Mathew said :n1 think this conviction eras right. The oppelant, in 'anion op his maiden tea chair in the noddle of the highway. obviously intended to etfcertt crowd, and the effort of the crowd ream to render the highway ltee convenient ard comodions to the public, se the jneti coy have espreesly found. I think what the appellant did in this case amounted tot wilful obetraction tithe highway, and he wee rightly convicted." Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, who concurred in the judgment, Paid "The appellant was not using the highway in the way all tbe 1 public may use M, but was using it to collect • crowd and addreee them. While the crowd wee ea collected those who wanted to cross the street at that place were prevented, and it caused incon• venience end danger. Thoogh only a pert of the highway weo Co obsi rooted, that makes, no differenm, for it Tree uot the lee. an obstruction? Tho effect of this judgment, therefore, is that the public hice a right to pees er repasa ever the , whole hightray, and any particular part of It ; and dant whoever hinders this freedom of movement ie guilty of wilf oltotroofion, end ie liable to fine on eonviction. That le the law. Se decided by the Court of Qteenfs Bench. How far it may always be advisable to put the law in force ill, of course, another qumtion.  SUICIDE Or A