“OATHS AGAINST OATHS.”

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 16, 17 January 1913, Page 6

“OATHS AGAINST OATHS.”

EVIDENCE IN A BY-LAW CASE. The.offence was just a common one, driving at night without lights, but the Court was occupied for nearly an hour in hearing it. Joseph Craddock, a Civil servant, was the defendant, for whom Mr. Robert Spence appeared, and Mr. T. C. Fookes represent-ed-the Borough Council. William Barlow, inspector for '.he Borough of Stratford, stated that on the evening of December 27th at 3 25 o’clock, he saw defendant driving a horse and gig without lights, a you-ig lady being with him. He (witness) walked into the middle of the load and hold up bis hands, and asked defendant to stop. Defendant,'however, pulled to one side : and drove on at a faster pace. The light was good, and he recognised defendant, and saw that defendant was holding tne reins. He (witness) called out: “It’s all rignt, I know you; I shall report you.” Subsequently ho saw defendant, and defendant said ho had not recognised the inspector.

Mr Spence suggested to witness tha ho was making a mistake, as defendant, rarely, if ever, drove at night, being short-sighted, but witness denied making any error.

John Cock deposed that was driving, and was seated on the driver’s side, when the horse and trap came out of the stables. He could not swear that defendant was driving when Barlow attempted to stop the trap, because he did not see defendant just at that time.

Charles Joseph Craddock, residing in .Stratford, the defendant, deposed that the pony and gig were his wile s special property. His wife drove the horse and trap from the stables, and he had never at any time in the journey had the reins in his hands. His wife’s hobby was horses, and she nearly always drove. He did not remember seeing Mr. Barlow at all, and did not know the inspector until that gentleman came up to him and spoke to him afterwards.

George Toms corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, as tc who was driving. Mrs. Craddock drove out of the stables, and he did not see them change seats. He could not have been mistaken as to this.

Newton Julian, stables employee, deposed that he got the horse ready at the request of Mrs. Craddock. It was the lady who drove away from the stables, but he did not see them in Regan Street, where the inspector stopped the horse and trap. Mr. Fookes questioned the witness as to how it happened that he should remember that particular night so accurately, and was met with the reply that it was race night. The Magistrate said that in a case of this kind it would havp been wise for the defendant to have told the inspector that he was going to defend the case, as bis wife was driving at the time. It might be in this case that it would be bad for a Civil servant to have a conviction against him, on the other hand, a man "might plead guilty to shield his wife. As to the merits of the case, it was a question of oaths against oaths. He was not satisfied af to who was driving. It was unbelievable that perjury Would be committed in such a trivial case.

Dismissed without prejudice and without costs.