More C.M.U. A. Defences.
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Re the Width of Tires and Slrakes on an Old Wagon, and Re the Use of a Trailer with a Heavy Motorcar Registered before the 1904 Order.
Several cases of alleged infringements of die Motor Car Act, 1903, and the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, were heard at Slough Court on 25th October. They were all in respect, of heavy motors, and in each instance Mr. G. D. Dean, on behalf of the Commercial Motor Users Association, defended.
William John Eastwood, Dunton Green. Herts., was summoned for driving a heavy motorcar having an insufficient width of tire, at Slough, on 3rd October.
A second summons against him was for having an excess of grooving on the wheels.
Messrs. Fanny, Quennell and Sons, Sevenoaks, Kent, were summoned for causing the vehicle to be driven, two summonses being issued against the firm. Mr. Dean said he purposed pleading guilty to the summonses, but he was going to ask the Bench to hear what he had to say, and they might see their way to dismiss the cases on payment of costs. Police-constable Fuggle stated that the leading wheels were 4 in. in width, whereas they should have been 5 in. The driving wheels, which were 8 in. wide, had grooving which varied between 2 in. and 3 in., and it ought to have been only 1 in.
Mr. Dean : "There is no dispute about the facts." Continuing, he said the motorcar was seven years old, and was registered under the old Act, before the limitation of weight came into force. He did not know whether the magistrates had read the particular section about grooving, hut it was confusing and difficult to understand. The defendant firm had misunderstood the Act, and, instead of measuring the grooving as it was intended it should be measured, had taken the width in another direction. With regard to the width of the tire, defendant bought the car thinking it met with all the requirements of the law, and he had no idea he was transgressing. He knew it was no excuse to say the defendant was ignorant of the state of affairs, but he would suggest that, now defendant's attention had been called to it, and he was prepared to put the matter right, the Bench might take a lenient view of the case. After all, in the county of Bucks., there was a great deal of strictness with regard to heavy motors. He did not know the idea of the county; whether it was like King Canute, trying to keep back the waves; but heavy motorcars had to come as a part of commercial enterprise-
The Clerk : " We do not mind the waves ' so much, as the kind of 'waves. "
3Ir. Dean : " If the county of Bucks. intended to see the law complied with, then I suggest that the same amount of latitude might be exercised in this as in other matters. If it were obvious that a man committed an offence through ignorance, then he might be warned before he is prosecuted." The Chairman, announcing the decision of the Bench, said : " Having heard your explanation, the Bench will dismiss the cases on the payment of costs."
George Bloomfield, of Bedford, was summoned for driving a heavy motorcar and trailer which together exceeded, when unladen, 61 tons, at Slough, on 29th September. He was further summoned for driving a heavy motorcar which had excessive grooving of the wheels, and also which had tires of insufficient width.
The owner, Mr. Fred Ray, of Bedford, was also summoned in respect of the heavy motorcar for causing it to be driven.
Mr. Dean said he did not think the case would take very long, because, he was glad to say, Superintendent Pearman had met him with regard to a point which might have taken up some time—the point with regard to the total weight of the vehicle and trailer. To the charge of having one hind wheel with insufficient width of tire, he would plead guilty, but not guilty to the other summonses. With regard to the total weight, he thought he could save the time of the court considerably by quoting a quite recent case. He understood that Superintendent Pearman was nut supplied by the county with copies of the current "Law Journal." Had he noticed the case in point, he might not have taken out the summons. There existed, up to the time of the case referred to, some doubt as to whether an old heavy motorcar, registered before the Order, could be allowed, under certain circumstances, to weigh over 5 tons, and whether it could draw a trailer if their combined weight came to over 6i tons. The case of Pilgrim and others v. Simmonds came before the Divisional Court on 18th May this year, and it was decided that it was in compliance with the law for a heavy motor to have a trailer attached, even when the total weight exceeded fi.} tons, so long as the trailer itself was not of an excessive weight, and so long as the heavy motorcar had been properly re-registered in compliance with Article 4 of Sub-section 5 of the Heavy Moto.Car Order of 1904. Mr. Pearman had agreed to raise no point as to the re-registration, as he admitted that it had taken place. He (Mr. Dean) was not going to ask for costs.
Superintendent Pearman said he was satisfied that the law had been complied with, having Been the report of the case Pilgrim and others v. Simmonds. In answer to the Bench, Mr. Dean said the result of the Pilgrim case only applied to old motors. Cars could not now be made exceeding in weight 5 tons.
Evidence was then given with regard to the grooving of the wheels. The police officer's statement was that the front wheels of the car were 6 in. wide. The plates on the off-side front wheel were separated by spaces of 14, in. and 13in., measured square across. The near-side front wheel, which measured 6 in, in width, had plates separated by 14 in. spaces. The maximum grooving allowed by the Order was 4a-1e-eighth of the width of the wheel. Mr. Dean, after cross-examining witness, said he would not take the case further, as his client was satisfied that he was some fraction—though a very small fraction—of an inch wrong in the distance of these plates from each other. What did it all come to? It was perfectly obvious that the wheel was constructed so as to comply with the law, but sometimes things happened, wheels wore, or something of that sort. As the amount out was an infinitesimal amount, he hoped the Bench would not take an unreasonable view of it. He would, on behalf of his client, plead guilty to a technical breach of the law.
The summonses against Bloomfield and Ray were then dismissed on the payment of costs. With regard to the third summons, for having a wheel of insufficient width, Mr. Dean said the offence was in respect to only one of the four wheels. As a matter of fact, the wheel had been damaged, and had had to be repaired. It had been repaired in London, probably by people not fully conversant with the requirements of the Act, and, unfortunately, the tire was not wide enough.
The summons against Bloomfield was dismissed, but Mr. Ray was fined 21 and costs for causing the car to be used.