Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 5 December 1930
Faults on Both Sides
Magistrates’ Opinion of Conisbro’ Smash.
That there were faults on both sides was the view expressed by the Doncaster magistrates on Saturday in dismissing a summons against Frank Lacey Kitchen, milk salesman, of Blaxton, for driving a motor lorry dangerously at Conisboro’ on Oct- 30th.
Henry Lumb, haulage contractor, of March Street, Conisboro , said he was driving a ton lorry laden with coke to the Station Road Schools, Conisboro’. He stopped the lorry on the left-hand side of the road opposite to the school gates, and went to the caretaker’s house. He returned to the vehicle, started the engine, looked round, and, on seeing nothing near, put his hand out to the right and turned the lorry into the school gates. His front wheel was in the entrance to the gates, when there was an impact at the rear of the lorry, which overturned. Defendant then pulled up a few yards down the hill.
Mrs. Mary Wroe, caretaker of the school, gave similar evidence.
Alfred Walker, butcher, Conisboro’, said defendant passed him higher up the road at about 10 miles an hour, although in reply to Mr. C. R. Marshall, defending, be admitted that that speed was quite safe, and, in his opinion, the accident was unavoidable.
P.c. Buck said that when reported Kitchen replied, “I looked out before I passed the carts. I blew my horn, and when I applied the brakes I seemed to go faster. He never looked out before he turned.”
Kitchen said he was driving from Denaby to Doncaster, and he alleged that Lumb turned sharply across the road without signalling or looking round. Witness applied his brakes, which seemed to make the lorry shoot forward for a moment before steadying it. Seeing a collision was unavoidable, he pulled his vehicle round the back of Lamb’s lorry, just catching its rear. It would not have overturned had the road been level.
After a retirement the Chairman (Mr. J. Dymond) said the Bench bad come to the conclusion that the case must be dismissed, for they would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. There were faults on both sides—the defendant was going too fast and the other man did not take enough precaution before crossing the road.