From the archives: Local trader summoned for obstructing footpath 88 years ago

By Tom Gillespie

IN recent years there has been an outcry over pave-side obstructions, in particular show boards, which impede pedestrians on footpaths.

Eight-eight years ago the situation was no different. However, on that occasion, the offending trader was hauled before the courts.

A report in The Connaught Telegraph on a court case, which appeared on Saturday, March 9, 1935, saw a Castlebar merchant summoned for causing an obstruction for placing his wares on the street pavement and hanging them on the front of his premises.

Thomas Moran, Linenhall Street, represented by Mr. Michael Moran, solicitor, was the defendant, while Supt. Flynn prosecuted.

Guard Doherty said on January 9, a market day, he was doing duty in Linenhall Street when outside the defendant’s premises he noticed bundles of rope, netting wire and other articles; also hanging from the wall, there was a bag.

Supt.: Was the bag projecting over the footpath? - Yes, for two or four inches.

Did you speak to the defendant? - Yes. When I measured the distance the article extended over the footpath the defendant came out and said he would remove the articles. I then left him and about two hours later I came back and the articles were still there and he continued to keep them there until the following Saturday.

And a number of articles were still left there? - Yes.

A big number of articles were along the wall. About a foot from the wall.

Where they causing an obstruction to pedestrians? - Well, on fair day there is a lot of traffic there and they impeded the traffic somewhat.

Did you see an instance of obstruction? - I saw a man stopped at this point and he more or less could not pass.

Is this the only trader who has challenged the request of the Guards? - Yes. I met a man in the Main Street who told me he was entitled to put out articles if Mr. Moran was.

But the man Moran is the only trader who did not comply with the request of the Guards? - Yes.

Mr. Moran (solicitor) cross-examined: You say you found a bundle of rope outside? Yes.

Where exactly was it? - Near to the door.

I put it to you that it was in such a position that it would obstruct nobody except a person going into the shop? - It was 14 inches outside the line of the wall.

Do you seriously say that 14 inches is going to obstruct the traffic? - There were other articles, too, netting wire and spades.

There was nothing on the footpath projecting more that 14 inches? - No.

And it was hanging up? - Yes.

At what height? - About four or five feet.

Can you swear that there was anybody obstructed on this occasion? - There was not a big crowd there but on a fair day there would be.

Did you actually see anybody being obstructed? - No.

And you had the place under observation for a long time? Not for long.

Can you say that Mr. Moran is the only offender? - I understand this man was warned twice against this.

But tell me this, how many places did you see with stuff hanging on the walls? - A number of them might hang things but not as big as Moran’s, and then he put the stuff on the footpath and they did not.

Did you see stuff on the footpath belonging to several other traders in town? - Stuff had just been delivered at Ennis’s and Armstrong’s, but it was being taken in immediately.

Did you not in fact see stuff outside one house in the Main Street and you never complained? - Well, that man said he was entitled to put it out when Moran did it, and he offered to take it in if Moran was made do the same thing. Mr. Moran is the only trader who persisted in keeping the stuff out.

Is it not the same with most people in the town? - Mr. Moran is the man they are objecting to and the particular person I mentioned said he would be only too glad if everyone kept their things in, including Mr. Moran.

Supt.: I don’t want any penalty imposed. All I want to see is Mr. Moran complying with the order, and if he doesn’t do that other people will start putting out stuff.

All I want is to keep the street clear.

The defendant in reply to his solicitor said he was a pretty heavy ratepayer, if not one of the heaviest in town.

And even to this day there are traders doing the same thing as you are doing? - Yes, the very same.

Supt.: You are not suggesting you are paying rates for the footpath, Mr. Moran? - I am not sure of that.

Did you challenge the authority of the Guards to remove the stuff? I did not see any obstruction.

I suggest that no trader in town is leaving stuff on the footpath? - That very day I saw five large packages on the street.

Are you prepared to take in the stuff now? - If it’s a general thing.

District Justice W.D. Coyne: What’s your objection?

Witness: It is a strange thing that the order only applies to Castlebar, and in other towns in the county you can put stuff along the wall.

Justice: You wouldn’t like to see the county town setting a good example? - There should be the same rule for all.

Supt.: I am not out for a penalty, but this man has seriously challenged the request of the Guards. Several traders told me they were only too delighted that the stuff was being removed from the streets.

Justice: Yes, when it’s for the general good of the town.

Supt.: I can give Mr. Moran a guarantee that it will be general in this town, but I cannot answer for other towns.

The defendant having given an undertaking not to place articles on the pavement in future, the Justice adjourned the case.