Sheffield Independent – Saturday 24 May 1884

Traction Engine Traffic.
Action Against Lord Scarborough.

The Doncaster West Riding justices were engaged for two hours on Saturday investigating an action taken against Lord Scarborough by the Lower Strafford and Tickhill Highway Board, for damage done to half a mile of highway in the parish of Stainton by one of his lordship’s traction engines, and the damages were assessed at £11 3s. 9d.

Mr. Sylvester, barrister (instructed by Messrs. Few and Co., of London), appeared for Lord Scarborough, and the Highway Board were represented by Mr. Barker (instructed by Mr. F. E. Nicholson, clerk to the authority). The proceedings were watched with keen interest by several owners of traction engines, as well as by the public.

Mr. Barker, in opening the case, said the traction engine in question was used for the purpose of hauling coal from Denaby Main Colliery to Conisboro’, and also to the estate of his lordship at Sandbeck. The engine was in the habit of dragging with it two trucks, containing about six tons of coal each, each truck also weighing a few tons. The surveyor had to take in hand the repair of the road, owing to the special damage, and expended thereon, during half-a-year, the sum of £11 3s. 9d., which was thought to be a very moderate amount.

The Surveyor to the Highway Authority (Mr. Joseph Wood), in reply to Mr. Barker, said the average cost per mile of the road was £5 17s. 10½d. for the particular part in question. Altogether there were twelve miles of highway. His attention was last September drawn to the road, and he found it in a very bad state. It had never previously been in such a bad condition. The wheels of the engine had made deep holes in the road. He had not done more than what he considered was necessary for the proper repair of the road; and but for the traction engine traffic this would not have been needed.

By Mr. Sylvester: Sixty-five yards of broken limestone was put on the road at a cost of 2s. 3d. per yard; for the carting 1s. per yard was charged, and for five days’ manual labour 12s. 6d. was asked. The damage had been done by the wheels of the engine.

Further testimony in favour of the action by the Highway Authority was given by a working man named Wm. Fox, who said he had seen the engine do the damage, and by Wm. Fawcett, a farmer.

On behalf of the defence, Rufus Coward, a miller, living at Stones, in the Maltby parish, described the road as being kept in bad condition, and he had complained about it. John Sanderson, farmer, Maltby, spoke likewise.

Thomas Hall, who stated that he came from the estate office at Sandbeck Park, and that he was steward under Lord Scarborough, remarked that, to his knowledge, there were other engines used by Messrs. Ellis (Balby), Burniston (Conisboro’), Spencer (Braithwell), Dobbs (Langold), Dickinson (Misson), and Hanson (Tickhill), all in the same neighbourhood. But he had never seen them on the road in question. The average rainfall during the year in that district was about 30 inches, and during September it was 5½ inches.

By Mr. Barker: The engines I have named are threshing machine engines.

William Booth Woodhead, an associate of the Institute of Civil Engineers and Surveyors, of Bradford, said he had conducted many miles of public and private roads, and he had professionally inspected the road in question, as well as others which had been referred to in evidence. He found the road in the Stainton parish was made of local magnesian limestone—much too soft, in his opinion, for any public road. It was improper stuff to repair a road with. He went to the place on the day previous, and could, with his foot, in several places scrape a hole three or four inches deep. He considered that the damage complained of by the Highway Authority was due to imperfect and insufficient repair, and to a lack of proper material.

This concluded the whole of the evidence, and Mr. Sylvester then addressed the magistrates.

After a few minutes’ consultation with the other justices on the bench, the chairman (Mr. G. B. C. Yarborough) said it had been decided to make an order. They considered that the road was kept practically in sufficient repair for the requirements of ordinary agricultural traffic. During one fortnight they found that the engine of Lord Scarborough went over the road five or six days each week, with two trucks of coal, each containing six tons, and that they looked upon as extraordinary traffic—traffic such as the road was not intended for. Extraordinary expense had been incurred in consequence of this, and they would make an order for £8.

Mr. Barker: With costs and counsel’s fee?
The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Sylvester asked the chairman to state a case for the superior court; but this was not acceded to, no satisfactory legal point being raised.