General Strike – Incident At Denaby Crossing

May 1926

.Mexborough and Swinton Times, May 21, 1926

Strike Incident At Denaby Crossing

Under the Emergency Powers, Wm. Shaw, a railway goods guard, living at the Railway Crossing Cottage, Denaby, was summoned at Doncaster on Tuesday for preventing the proper use or working of a railway. Mr. C. C. Byers, of Wakefield, prosecuted on behalf of the police, and Mr. G. S. Ward defended.

Mr. Byers said the offence was alleged to have been committed at 3-15 p.m. on Friday, May 14th. Defendant pulled a wire attached to a signal, changing it from ‘danger’ to ‘all right; and after the passage of a train released the wire to place the signal at ‘danger again. He was instructed (proceeded Mr. Byers) that it was the practice of the Company, in times like these, to keep all the signals at ‘danger,’ the signals being disconnected from the signal cabins and a different working method adopted. On the afternoon of this date a volunteer worker engaged in looking after the level crossing gates had just closed the gates when he saw the defendant commit the offence just mentioned. Shaw was a man on strike, and had no authority to interfere with the wire. The effect of his action might possibly have been to have interfered with the new working, and might have indicated something untoward to the person driving the approaching train.

Mr. Ward said the signal had been worked during the strike, and Shaw had assisted the volunteer worker. He lived at the cottage, and had helped the volunteer on the previous day to work the gates.

The volunteer worker gave evidence and said that while it was true the defendant had previously operated the wire he was more of a hindrance to him than a help.

Mr. Ward submitted that the offence, in view of the evidence, could not be brought within the meaning of the particular section of the Act.

The Bench bound defendant over and ordered him to pay 10s. towards the costs.

The Chairman (Mr. G. E. Cooke-Yarborough), in answer to Mr. Ward, stated that no conviction was recorded, and that this action should not imperil defendant’s reinstatement by the Company.