Accident Not Reported: Sequel at Police Court: Mrs. Ethel Betty Pinsent, 1, Red Lynch House Ascot, was summoned at Windsor Petty Sessions recently for not reporting an accident in which a car she was driving was concerned at Peascod Street, Windsor, on 22nd March, as required by law. The original summons mentioned the word and this the Chief Constable asked should be amended to “damage.” Mr. Coxwell, who defended, raised no objection. The plea was not guilty. Harold Toovey, Th Nursery, Datchet Road, Slough, said on 22nd March, at about 11:45 a.m. he was coming up Peascod Street in a van, towards the Castle. When about opposite Messrs. Denney’s shop in Lower Peascod Street, he had to stop because of traffic congestion. Two lorries stopped in front of him and there was a stationary van on the other side of the road. Facing him there was a light car and a heavy lorry behind that. The lorries in front of him could not move, so they had to ease in as near as they could to let him through. The car driven by the defendant came through and collided with the rear off-side of his van. When he got out to look round to see what had happened, the lady had driven away. He had no opportunity of requesting her to give her name and address. Police-Constable Wastie, Berks Constabulary, Winkfield, said on 3rd April he interviewed the defendant, cautioned her and she made a statement. Mrs. Pinsent said that when she received the summons before the work “injury” had been altered to “damage” she felt perfectly dreadful, and it worried her most frightfully. Mr. Gordon Coxwell: You thought you had injured someone? Witness: I could not understand it all. It gave you a great shock. – A terrible shock. It is said an accident occurred whereby you caused damage. Did you know you had done any damage! No! Did anyone do any damage to you? No, except the wing, which was scratched. It was an old van in very bad repair, with a broken wing at the back. Some paint was scratched off my off-side front wing. Why did you not try and get hold of the van driver? Because the van had gone away. Continuing, Mrs. Pinsent said she had stopped at the time and saw the scratches, but there was no dent. It was so trivial that she did not intend to claim from anyone and paint 5s to have the scratches painted over. Having told the Bench there was a traffic block in Peascod Street, the defendant said she stopped behind the stationary car thinking there was no room to go on. A pedestrian stepped on the pavement and beckoned her through. She still thought there was no room and did not proceed. The pedestrian again beckoned and looked very annoyed because she did not go through. She started to go through very, very slowly in bottom gear and as she was doing so the other car, driven by Mr. Toovey, instead of waiting, also started to go through. Mr. Toovey’s car bumped into the mudguard of her car. She stopped immediately but Toovey pulled right over her mudguard. She got out to see what was wrong, saw that the wing was just scratched and that no damage could possibly have been caused to any other vehicle or person. She was agitated because she thought her car was making greater congestion by remaining and she thought the best thing was to drive on again. No one made signs for her to stop and no one asked her any questions. To her knowledge she had not caused any damage to any person and thought there was no necessity to report the incident. This was her tenth year of driving, and she had a clean license. In answer to the Chief Constable Mrs. Pinsent said she had heard Mr. Toovey state that his car was stationary. The Chief Constable: do you know he remained stationary for fifteen minutes after the accident? Mrs. Pinsent: No. do you know he reported to a Police Constable on the spot and particulars were taken down there? No. Mr. Gordon Coxwell drew attention to the form of the summons. He did not like to make a fuss, but it had very much upset this lady because she thought she really had caused injury to Mr. Toovey. Mr. Toovey had since been into the box and could not identify the lady or the car. The Justices Clerk: There is no dispute about the fact that she was there: Conflict of Evidence: Mr. Coxwell: It all seems so curious. The man says he was stationary. It is only his evidence against hers. On her part she says he was not stationary but came through and struck her car. The Justices Clerk: A direct conflict of evidence. Mr. Coxwell stated there was the further fact that Mrs. Pinsent had sworn she did not know any damage had taken place. She stopped and did not race on. She looked at the car and found a small scratch and thought “it is nothing”. It was only one person against the other. The mayor said the Bench found the case proved. The Chief Constable said he did not press for an endorsement of the license. Mrs. Pinsent had a ten year’s clean license. The mayor said the case would be dismissed under the P.O.A. on payment of £1 costs.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive
Referenced
GRO1155 Hennock: Ethel Betty Brittan: xxxx – xxxx