Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 30 Nov 1921
Page 3 Column 5
TAUNTON COUNTY COURT.
TUESDAY. - Before His Honour Judge the Hon. W. B. LINDLEY.
A WILL CLAIM.
IDENTITY NOT PROVED.
There was claim by Mrs. Edith Dunhill THOMAS, of Hull, for payment out of court of the sum of £100 and interest. - Mr. H. T. KITE appeared on behalf of the petitioner and explained that the matter arose out of a will made by Elizabeth COLLARD, deceased, formerly living at Haydon-road, Taunton. In a will made on the 20th of January, 1902, deceased bequeathed the sum of £100 to Henry George THOMAS. Testatrix died on September 15th, 1911, and the will was proved by the surviving executor, Henry George SMITH. The latter advertised for THOMAS, who had not been heard of for many years, but he received no reply. On the 24th of May, 1921, petitioner claimed to be the widow of George Henry THOMAS. She stated that they were married on November 3rd, 1907, and produced the certificate of marriage. Petitioner also said her husband had died in a military hospital at Curragh, Ireland, on November 17th, 1917. She did not know anything about the will until March, 1921.
His Honour said the difficulty he found was that there was no evidence except that of Mrs. Dunhill THOMAS of the identity of this George Henry THOMAS with Henry George THOMAS.
The case was adjourned for further evidence.
SEQUEL TO AN ACCIDENT IN FORE-STREET.
MOTOR-CYCLIST AND CYCLIST IN COLLISON.
HIS HONOUR AND A RULE OF THE ROAD.
John Alfred MUD claimed the sum of £25 6s 8d from Mr. W. F. B. DAWE, clerk to the Taunton Rural District Council, as compensation for damages received in an accident alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the latter. - Mr. Ivor JONES appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. P. CLARKE for the defendant.
Mr. JONES said that the case arose out of an accident which occurred on the 1st of June last in the centre of Taunton, near the Market-place. The roads there were rather confusing, Fore-street forming three sides of a triangle. The facts they were relying upon were as follow:- The plaintiff was riding a solo motor-bicycle along East-street, going towards the Market-place, and passing the Burmese Memorial on his left. He was then looking towards North-street, and was on his correct side of the road, and going at a strictly moderate pace. In front of him, also on his correct side of the road, was the defendant, who was cycling along on an ordinary push bicycle, going in the opposite direction to the complainant at a little more than a walking pace. When the defendant arrived almost opposite a shop, now vacant, but formerly occupied by a man named SKINNER, he, either without thinking or having suddenly made up his mind, made what could only be described as a sudden swoop across the road. In doing so he came broadside on to the plaintiff. The latter had then apparently to decide very quickly which of two alternatives he would take, either to smash into the defendant or into the Arcade. He (the plaintiff) thought there was a possible chance of “dodging” the defendant by hitting the kerb of the market house at right angles. He did “dodge” the defendant, but he could not get over the kerb, and he was thrown off, and struck one of the pillars of the Market House. In consequence of injuries he sustained he was away from work for some time. He was employed by a firm of electricians, and his claim was for loss of wages, and subsistence allowance, and for damage to the motor-bicycle. He thought the whole case would depend upon whether there was sufficient negligence on the part of the defendant to make him liable. Mr. JONES then read correspondence that had passed between the solicitors for the two parties.
Complainant gave evidence in corroboration of Mr. JONES's statements, and added that the time at which the accident occurred was about 7.20 p.m., and he was riding a 1913 or '14 3½ h.p. Premier. He was going about 10 miles an hour, and as he was passing the memorial his attention was attracted by Mr. DAWE turning across the road. He gave no warning of any description, and it appeared to him (complainant) that he (defendant) was “day dreaming.” It was a question of either smashing into him or trying to get in between the pillars of the Arcade. As he rode into the kerb his machine touched Mr. DAWE's front wheel, and he went over as well. He was attended by Dr. THOMPSON, and Mr. DAWE followed him there. They subsequently exchanged names and addresses. The claim was made up by loss in wages and subsistence allowance and damage to the machine. There was no claim for medical attendance because he was an insured person.
Mr. CLARKE: I suggest you saw Mr. DAWE long before you came to the Burmese monument – Complainant: No.
Continuing, complainant said his complaint was that Mr. DAWE should have given some warning of his intention to cross the road, or have waited until he (plaintiff) had passed. He had no room or time to get behind Mr. DAWE.
Stanley H. COX, engineer, of Taunton, stated that he was walking along the pavement near the shop previously occupied by a Mr. SKINNER. Mr. DAWE was cycling along just in front of him on his correct side of the road, and when he got to Skinner's he cut at practically a right angle across the road. Glancing across the road witness saw Mr. MUD, and realised that an accident was bound to happen. Mr. DAWE was directly in the way of the plaintiff, and there was no way to avoid an accident. He saw the collision, and walked across. Whilst plaintiff was being treated at Dr. THOMPSON's Mr. DAWE suggested to him (witness) how unfortunate it was that the accident should have occurred, and saying he thought Mr. MUD could have gone behind him.
Giving evidence on his own behalf, defendant said he had ridden a bicycle for 35 years. Before he crossed the road, as previously stated, he looked behind and in front, and saw the plaintiff nearly up to Messrs. Marshalsea's garage and 50 years away from where he (defendant) was. He had a matter of 12ft. or 13ft. to travel to entirely clear the running roads. He had got to within 3ft. of the Arcade, and had passed the second pillar of the same, when he heard a shout and saw a bicycle wheel coming between him and the Arcade. In almost less than a tenth of a second the plaintiff's left handle bar hit a pillar of the Arcade, and his left foot rest just touched his (witness's) front wheel and turned it, with the result that he (witness) fell over into the road close by. There was 40ft. of clear roadway behind him.
John DULBOROUGH, waiter at the County Club, also gave evidence.
Mr. E. A. MARSHALSEA said in his opinion the plaintiff had ample time to avoid the accident had he had proper control over his machine.
Mr. T. Goldsworthy CRUMP, surveyor to the Taunton Rural District Council, said from what he had heard of the case Mr. MUD should have gone behind Mr. DAWE.
His Honour said he had come to the conclusion that both parties were to blame in this case. The plaintiff ought to have seen DAWE before he did, and on the other hand he thought Mr. DAWE was to blame in the first place because it was the duty of everyone who might be in a similar position to show by some means that they were going to cross the line of traffic. Defendant did not do so. If he had given some sign it might have called the plaintiff's attention to him. Then again he thought Mr. DAWE was to blame in that he attempted to cross the line of traffic without allowing sufficient time to do so in safety. Therefore there would be judgment for the defendant, but without costs. It was most unsafe to cross the line of traffic without giving warning.
AN UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM.
There was a claim by Thomas WEBBER against the Rev. J. BLACKHYLAND, of Combe Florey, for payment of the sum of 30s, which the former alleged was due to him for some work he had done. Defendant was represented by Mr. C. P. CLARKE.
Plaintiff said he had done some hedge cutting for the defendant in exchange for some wood, and when some men who had offered to take away the wood for him had started to do so Mr. BLACKHYLAND, stopped them. He then went into a lengthy and rather confused description of the the various contracts that had been arranged between the defendant and himself, and stated that he had cut the hedge round a 3½ acre field, and the defendant had promised him that wood, and also any wood he could get by cutting the Quarry field. - Mr. BLACKHYLAND explained the misunderstanding, and, the plaintiff becoming abusive, judgement was given for the defendant, with costs.