Original image on Facebook
Buntingford Petty Sessions
Friday last, before Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E., and Captain H.H. Williams, with the Clerk (Mr H.M. Gisby).
No Licence
William Brown, of Harestreet, Buntingford, was charged with keeping a dog without a licence.
P.c. Gillett gave evidence of calling on defendant at 10 p.m. on 21st June.
The Chairman, who referred to the absence of the defendant from Court, said there would be a fine of 10/- with 4/- costs.
A Motor Case: Sequel to an Accident
Cecil Charles, of Cottered, was summoned for driving a motor car without having efficient brakes attached, at Buntingford, on 14th July.
P.c. Williams, of Buntingford, stated that he was called to the scene of an accident during the afternoon of 14th July.
On arrival he found that a motor lorry, owned by Mr Charles of Cottered, had collided with a Calthorpe car at the junction of Baldock Road. He noticed a skid mark made by the front wheels of the lorry; there were no skid marks from the rear wheels. The road was in good condition.
On Friday, 16th June, in company with P.s. Dean, he examined the brakes and hooter of the damaged lorry which had been removed to the Tanyard. Both the front and rear brakes were inefficient; the front brake when pulled back had no effect on the brake, and when the foot brake was pressed down it went easily on the casting.
On Wednesday, 21st July, in company with the defendant and Sergeant Dean, he again inspected the loory. The rear wheel was jacked up, and although the hand brake was pulled on the wheel turned easily. He asked the driver for an explanation, and he replied that a new band had been recently put on the hand brake, and that both brakes were in order.
Cross-examined by Mr Reginald Hartley, solicitor, of Royston, who represented defendant, the constable stated that he had had little experience with motor cars. He did not examine the brakes on the day of the accident. The brake guide was not disconnected when he first examined the lorry.
P.c. Gillett stated that he was present when the lorry was examined by the last witness. He tested the brakes, and neither of them had any control over the amchine. The foot brake required taking up.
Cross-examined by Mr Hartley, the constable said the front part of the lorry was badly damaged.
Alfred Hale Hedges, motor engineer, of Buntingford, gave evidence of inspecting the damaged lorry at the Tanyard. The foot brake pedal went down on top of the transmission case casting without gripping the bands. The brake required taking up. The hand brake lever could be pulled right back, and judging from his experience the two brakes had no control over the car.
Cross-examined by Mr Hartley, witness said he had had 22 years' experience with motors. Since the war he had done a lot of work on Ford cars. The Ferodo lining might last two weeks or perhaps six months, it all depended on the quality. The brakes were intact when he examined the lorry. The brake guides would have no effect on the breaking.
In reply to the Chairman, witness said in his opinion the accident to the front part of the lorry had no effect upon the brakes.
Cecil Charles, the driver, stated that the brakes had been re-lined in June. He had used both brakes just before the accident, and they were efficient.
Herbert Crowe, motor engineer, of Stevenage, who stated that he had had nine years' experience with motors, said he examined the damaged lorry on Thursday, 19th August. The hand brake was holding on the off-side rear wheel but not on the near side.
When he replaced the brake rod in the brake guide he found that the brake operated on both wheels. The front of the lorry was badly damaged, and he thought that the collision threw the brakes out of the guide. It was not possible to test the foot brake as the engine could not be started.
Mr Frank Charles, the owner of the car, gave evidence of driving the vehicle on the day previous to the accident, and said the car stood on a hill although it was loaded with 50 trusses of straw.
Alfred Baker, of Ware, gave evidence of witnessing the accident, and stated that the defendant was travelling slowly at the time and would not require brakes to pull up.
The Bench retired, and on their return, the chairman said they had given the case very careful consideration, and had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction.
It was somewhat unfortunate that the condition of the lorry was not examined on the day of the accident by an expert.
