From Notorious Bolton.
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. T. W. Grace has had another battle on behalf of a motor driver charged with exceeding the speed limit in Bolton, where the former gentleman recalled the Bolton Police solicitor's etatement of 28th February, viz., that there was an association got up amongst the owners of lorries, apparently for the purpose of collecting money to 'pay fines with a view to resisting the law. Mr. Grace protested strongly against these side issues being introduced in policecourt proceedings, and explained to the Bench the truthful circumstances.
With a view to bringing home to the drivers their responsibility as to speed (said Mr. Grace), the employers arranged a small fund amongst themselves and drivers. When a driver was fined for the first time, he paid three-fifths of the fine and the employer two-fifths ; for the second, the driver five-eighths and the owner three-eighths ; for the third, driver twothirds and owner one-third. He submitted that such an arrangement was proper, and the best possible method of keeping within the law ; whereas the police solicitor seemed to regret there was no legal process to get at the owners for making this arrangement. The defendant was Jas. Kemp, motor driver, of Preston, who said that in 10 years he had never come across a satisfactory speed-recording instrument. He was fined 10s. and costs.
It is a relief to notice that at last something has happened in Bolton to prove that justice as doled
out from a Bench is not wholly antipathetic to the commercial motor. But it was not in the Police Court. It was in the Civil Court. Judge Bradbury has saved the name of Bolton from complete illrenown. But he is not a Boltonian : he is a visiting judge. He had before him on Wednesday the case of the South Lancashire Tramways Co. V. Jackson's Stone Quarries, Ltd., of Middle Hulton, near Bolton, the latter being a firm whose up-to-dateness in using a motor for their heavy traction work is admirable. The tram company claimed 23 15s. for damages to a car ; the quarry owners counterclaimed 9 4s. 11d, for damages to a trailer. Smethurst Lane runs at right angles to a main road on which the tram was travelling ; the motor wagon and trailer came out of the lane ; there was a collision, a row between the drivers, and conflicting evidence in court. It was said in court that the tram travelled at 10 m.p.h. and the motor at three m.p.h.
The judge pointed out that the evidence of the cardriver himself was that he did not see the motor till 8 or 10 yards from it. It was obvious he was not keeping a lookout at all ; he should have seen the wagon 100 yards away. The car driver was to blame ; he had got the idea that if he rang his bell and a lorry came out of a side street the latter must stop. If that were so, the sooner drivers got that idea out of their heads the better_ Judgment for Messrs. Jackson on both claims.