Lorry Driver’s Hours
Case Against Conisboro’ Firm Dismissed
Discrepancies in Dates
When Edward Lumb and Harry Appleyard, haulage contractors, of Conisboro’, trading as Appleyard and Lumb, were summoned at Doncaster on Tuesday for having, on several occasions, employed a driver more than eleven hours a day, discrepancies arose in the alleged dates and those given by the driver during cross-examination, and the Bench dismissed the case.
Supt. Huddlestone said it was alleged that on April 30 a driver named Broad, of Doncaster, was instructed to drive a lorry to London. He left Conisboro’ at 9 p.m., and arrived in London at 9 o’clock the following morning. In London he assisted in unloading and reloading the vehicle. He left London at 1 p.m. and arrived in Conisboro’ at 11-30 p.m. He had thus been employed for a continuous period of over 26 hours. On the outward journey he had one hour’s sleep on the roadside. Supt. Huddlestone added that on this occasion Broad was definitely instructed to be back in Conisboro’ on the following night in order that the lorry might be re-loaded.
On May 4th Broad was detailed to take a load to Durham. He left Conisboro’ at 9 a.m., and arrived back at about 9-45 a.m. on the following day. He had been out for over 24 hours without rest at all. Similar journeys were made on May 13th, when he worked for over 24 hours, and May 28th, when he was employed 14½ hours. On May 29th he set out from Conisboro’, but met with an accident. Lumb went out in a car to see him, and told him to drive back to Conisboro’. The engine gave more trouble on the way and Lumb again came out to tow the lorry in. On this occasion Broad was employed for over 15 hours. Immediately the lorry arrived at Conisboro’, Lumb said to Broad: “You are dismissed. We have no further use for you.”
“The firm made no provision for proper rest,” said Supt. Huddlestone, “and they must have known perfectly well that he would have been employed more hours than was permitted by law.”
Thos. Broad, the driver, bore out this statement. He said that when he was dismissed he was paid only a day’s wage, and was due to a week’s pay.
Mr. J. H. Dunk, Sheffield (defending), suggested to witness that if his story was true he himself had committed five distinct offences. “If your mate comes here and says you were in Grimsby on May 1st, and not in London, as you have stated, do you suggest he is not telling the truth?”
Broad: I suggest I have been mixed with the dates.
The Chairman (Mr. G. E. Cooke-Yarborough) asked if he might inspect the summons. “Taking the first summons relating to May 1st,” he said. “On that day it is said he was in London. Now, in cross-examination, he says he was in Grimsby. Surely the first summons goes.”
Supt. Huddlestone: It is rather remarkable that they come forward this morning with concrete evidence which they could not produce at the time. I sent a constable to the firm, and if they were in possession of the information they bring this morning, why did they not tell the police?
Mr. Dunk: Why did you not ask for it?
Supt. Huddlestone: I suggest that the case be adjourned to issue a fresh summons.
Mr. Dunk: My instructions are that the firm had the information, and had they been asked for it would have been pleased to give it. They gave the police officer the information they are putting in to-day.
Supt. Huddlestone said the constable was shown a book which contained little to help the case.
After a long consultation the magistrates’ clerk intimated that the case must proceed.
The case continued for a short time, but again there were discrepancies in the dates. Finally the Chairman said: “We shall never get over this. Unfortunately we are tied down to the actual cases. What do you think, Superintendent?”
Supt. Huddlestone: I am not satisfied, sir.
Mr. Dunk: My instructions are that this man has never been overworked.
The Chairman: We shall have to dismiss the summonses.