Mexborough and Swinton Times, May 6th 1932
Sequel To Fatal Motor Car Accident
Post-Inquest Explanation
That fresh evidence had come to light explaining a fatal accident in High Street, West Melton, On March 28th, was the statement put forward by the Rev. Charles Leslie Suggitt (40), Vicar of Brampton Bierlow, when he was charged at Rotherham on Monday, with having driven a motor car without due care and attention
Mr. J. Colton Fox (Chairman of the Bench), in finding the defendant £5 and costs, said the Bench sympathised with him but they felt that it was proved that he did not drive with care and attention. They all realised that the amount of the fine was the least part of the penalty to be paid in view of what had happened.
Mr. A. H. Jackson, who defended, asked for fourteen days in which to pay the fine as the question of appeal might be considered.
Supt. T. Horton M.B.E. said that just before four o’clock on March 28th a child named Derick Cartwright (4), attempted to cross High Street from the opposite side of the road in which the car driven by the defendant was travelling. The child ran in front of the car and witnesses would tell the magistrates that the near-side mudguard struck the child and it was carried some yards on the car and then dragged along the ground, a distance in all of 42 feet. Unfortunately the child died as a result of the accident. When the defendant was asked for an explanation he said, “I never saw the child,” and that statement was repeated with some additions before the coroner’s jury. The child ran from the off-side of the street and there was nothing in the street to have prevented the defendant from seeing the child. Why he should travel 42 feet after he had struck the child was beyond his (Mr. Horton’s) comprehension.
Child’s Misapprehension
Rosaline Parkin (12) Oak Lea Avenue, West Melton, who was playing with the child at the end of the avenue, said Derick ran across the road to look at some fowls in a farmyard. A woman came out and Derick thought she was going to catch him whereas really, she was coming out to shut the gate. Derick ran across the road. She tried to stop him by getting hold of his mackintosh but he pulled and got away. Derick was knocked down when he was only a step and a half from the other side of the road.
“Since the inquest we have an explanation of what happened,” remarked Mr. A. H. Jackson, as he commenced cross-examining witness.
Witness in reply to Mr. Jackson, sad that after Derick ran across the road, she turned to look at the woman from the farmyard, so that she could not say if Derick might have gone right across the road, played there for a bit, and then stepped off the pavement to cross the road again.
Witness’s Denials
Arthur Holmes, 22, Stokeswood Road, West Melton, stated that he was standing at the junction and when he saw the child it was in the middle of the road. The child did not reach the other side of the road before it was struck.
Witness said he ran after the car after the accident until the child dropped about fourteen yards further on.
Mr. Jackson said his view would be obstructed by the car so that he could not see whether the child was carried or not, or whether the child reached the other side of the road before it was struck.
Witness: No, I could see.
The injuries were all on the right side of the face? – Yes.
Can you possible conceive how the injuries came to the right side and not the left? – Possibly when the child was knocked down it rolled over.
Mr. Jackson submitted that the child was knocked down when stepping forward from the pavement.
Witness: No, He never did.
Witness admitted that the defendant had no chance to avoid the child.
P.c. Evanson stated that he arrived on the scene of the accident two minutes later. After the child had been taken to hospital he questioned defendant, who said “I never saw the child.”
Objection to Witness
When Inspector Holey was going into the witness box to state the evidence given by the defendant at the inquest, Mr. Jackson objected on the grounds that it was not proper evidence. There was a proper way of obtaining the evidence from the depositions taken down by the coroner. He had nothing to hide but it was a matter of principle.
Supt. Horton said the Inspector would state exactly what was stated.
Mr. Jackson said if it was suggested that they were altering the facts to suit the case they had better take the evidence.
The Magistrates Clerk (Mr. H. Baker) said that strictly speaking it was not evidence, But Mr. Horton would be able to cross-examine the defendant on it.
Mr. Jackson, addressing the magistrates, said naturally this was a case which gave Mr. Suggitt great anxiety. He was as sorry as anyone that this unfortunate thing had happened. Under any circumstances the case presented grave difficulties and one which was the more difficult because the driver of the car never saw the child. This he had stated at the inquest despite the obvious way out which was presented. He simply stated what was the truth. What neither Mr. Suggitt or he (Mr. Jackson) was able to understand was why, if the child had run from the offside of the road and there was nothing to prevent his view, Mr. Suggitt had not seen the child.
Voluntary Witnesses
When the inquest was over witnesses came quite voluntarily and they would state the whole story.
It was admitted by the prosecution, said Mr. Jackson, that there was not excessive speed, that Mr. Suggitt was driving on the proper side of the road and that a number of children were playing at crossing and re-crossing the road. Mr. Jackson suggested there was a certain grievance between the witness Holmes and Mr. Suggitt but even Holmes had stated that Mr. Suggitt could not have avoided the child. He suggested that even as the case stood at the moment without the additional evidence for the defence, that there was nothing in which the defendant could be said to be careless or negligent.
Defendant, in evidence, said he was taking his father for a drive. He had just passed Oak Lea Avenue when he heard a shout. That as the first intimation he had that anything had happened, he never saw the child. There was a tram standard at the corner and his vision might have been obscured by it. He could not possibly have avoided the accident.
On cross-examination Mr. Suggitt said the witness Holmes had a personal dislike to him, because of what had happened some years ago.
Supt. Horton: Do you suggest that the child did not run across the road in a diagonal manner, as described by the little girl? – I don’t think that is a fair question.
Do you doubt if that is the case. If you do doubt it, what do you suggest? – I suggested what I thought, and told my father at the time – that the child ran across from the farmyard side to Oak lea Avenue and either slipped or ran from the pavement in front of the car on the return journey.
Did you suggest that at the inquest? – No, I did not think mere opinion was sufficient. And yet it was extremely in your favour? – I gave evidence of fact which I believed was the truth. The suggestion did occur to me.
Albert Holmes, labourer, 6, Smith’s Buildings, West Melton, said he saw two children run across the road to the farm. Derick ran back and reached the pavement and then made to cross to the farm again. As he stepped off the car hit him. The driver could not avoid doing so. In his opinion no one could have avoided hitting the child.
Mrs. Alice Sith, of Oak Lea Avenue, West Melton, said in her opinion the driver of the car could not see the child as it left the footpath as his vision would be obscured by the tram standard.