Boy Motorist's Appeal
Boy Motorist's Appeal is an article published in The Eastbourne Gazette on 29 june 1927.
Adrian and Denis Conan Doyle were witnesses, and Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a letter about the case on 1st june 1927.
Boy Motorist's Appeal
EASTBOURNE MAGISTRATES' DECISION CONFIRMED
YEAR'S SUSPENSION TO REMAIN
For driving a motor car at a speed dangerous to the public on May 13, an Eastbourne schoolboy was fined £15 at the Eastbourne Bench on May 23. In addition he was ordered to pay costs, his licence was endorsed, and he was suspended from driving for 12 months. At the East Sussex Quarter Sessions held at Lewes yesterday (Tuesday), an appeal against the conviction was dismissed.
At the end of the hearing, mention was made of a letter written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to a newspaper, and of another written by a son of Sir Arthur.
The appellant was Richard Grainger Jeune Nash, aged 17 years, and the respondent was William Henry Smith, Chief Constable of Eastbourne.
Mr. John Flowers, instructed by Mr. C. W. Mayo, appeared for the appellant, and Mr. St. John Hutchinson, instructed by Mr. H. W. Fovargue, represented respondent.
A Warning to Others.
Mr. St. John Hutchinson said that on May 13, appellant drove a motor car five or six times in a circle composed of St. Anne's-road, Mill Gap-road, Selwyn-road and Watts-lane at a speed which witnesses would say was very excessive. There were some dangerous corner; on the route mentioned, and at one point there was actually a notice requesting motorists to drive slowly. There were also several schools in the vicinity. There was an admitted pace of 35 miles an hour. The Eastbourne Bench felt that the only possible punishment they could inflict was that which would be a warning.
Harry Brooks, caretaker at the Boys' Secondary School, St. Anne's-road, said that at about 2 p.m. on May 13, while he was in the grounds of the school his attention was drawn to the car by the noise it was making. He went to the gate and saw the car flash by at a great speed. One of the occupants of the car asked him why he was taking the number of the car. When witness told him that it was not a racing track, the occupants of the car seemed highly amused.
Like an Aeroplane.
Frank Herbert James Jenner, of Eversleigh Lodge, St. Anne's-road, said that while he was in a bedroom, he heard a noise that he thought was made by an aeroplane. He looked up at the sky, and then realised that the noise was made by what he would imagine was a high-powered motor car. It went past his house at a tremendous speed, and it was followed by a smaller car, which was some way behind. It passed several times.
Mrs. Evelyn Jenner, wife of the last witness, gave similar evidence.
Leonard Oswald Stant, Pageant House, Westham, a scholar at Eversleigh Court School, Frederick Walsh, aged 14, of 9, Summerdown-road, Henry Francis Hewett, aged 11, of 4, Victoria-place, Peter Jackson, aged 18, of St. George's School, all gave evidence as to the speed at which defendant was driving, and two of them stated that the car skidded on turning a corner.
Police-constable Frederick Kenward said that on May 15, appellant made a voluntary statement. He denied that he drove to the danger of the public at any time as there was no traffic except boys on the pavement. The boys, he stated, signalled him on. He stated that at no time was he driving at more than 35 miles an hour, and that he always had the car under complete control.
Witness stated that there was a notice board near the boys' secondary school bearing the words "Please drive slowly — cross roads."
This concluded the case for respondent.
The Case for Appellant.
Mr. John Flowers said that appellant, who was 17 years of age, had been driving motor cycles since 1925, and motor cars since January of this year. Until the time of the complaint in question, there had never been a complaint of any kind with regard to his driving of motor cycles or motor cars. Although on the day in question there was probably a little too much youthful enthusiasm, he doubted whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant conviction for driving to the danger of the public. There was not a tittle of evidence that he was driving to the danger of anyone in St. Anne's-road.
He asked the magistrates to say that the offence had not been proved. In case the Bench were against him on the question of conviction, he had to address them on the question of sentence, and he did so with confidence. The sentence was a £15 fine, costs, endorsement and suspension for a year. Could justices have imposed a more savage sentence than that if they had before them a motorist who had repeatedly offended? He suggested that it was an unheard-of thing for a first offence of that kind to be punished by a very heavy fine, costs, endorsement and suspension. If the Bench decided that the conviction should be upheld, he asked them to say that the sentence should not stand, and that at any rate the suspension should be removed.
Testing the Brakes.
Appellant said that he lived at Guildford and was studying in Eastbourne. The car that he drove was a 11.9 h.p. Fraser-Nash, and the engine was very noisy. His object in driving on the day in question was to test the four-wheel brakes. The highest speed at which he drove was 35 miles an hour, and that was in St. Anne's-road. At the wide corner his speed was about 17 miles an hour, and at the other corners he slowed right down. At the corners were boys, and as the car approached they signalled him on. On one occasion he was signalled to stop and he had no difficulty in doing so. He always had the car under control.
In reply to Mr. St. John Hutchinson, appellant said that in the circumstances he considired he was driving carefully.
Denis Percy Stewart Conan Doyle, aged 18 years, son of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, studying at the same school as appellant, said that he was in the car sitting beside the driver. The maximum speed at any time was 35 miles an hour. At the wide corner the speed was 18 miles an hour, and at the other corners the speed was very low. Appellant was a skilful and careful driver.
Mr. St. John Hutchinson — Did you know the date on which he was going to appeal? — No, I did not. I knew he had thought of appealing, but did not know that he had.
Witness stated that he was not asked to give evidence at the police court. Appellant was not at the police court because he was nervous. He was very shy.
"Wrote to a Newspaper."
Mr. St. John Hutchinson — Was it you who wrote to a newspaper "The Motor"? — Yes.
Mr. St. John Hutchinson then read the published letter, in which it was stated: "Although my friend has always been an extremely good and careful driver, and although this was his first offence of any kind whatever, he was fined for alleged dangerous driving £15 and 15s. costs and had his driving licence suspended for a year. No wonder the Eastbourne police and magistrates have earned such an unenviable and notorious reputation all over England for their officiousness and rank injustice to motorists. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others no town ever more richly deserved such a reputation."
Mr. St. John Hutchinson — Do you consider that a clear summary of what happened? — Well, it is a bald statement of what happened.
Malcolm Conan Doyle, brother of the last witness, aged 17 years, said that he was in the dickey seat of the car. Appellant had the car completely under control.
Appellant's mother also gave evidence. She said the car belonged to her. She had always found her son a careful driver.
The Bench dismissed the appeal with costs.
Two Letters.
Mr. St. John Hutchinson told the Bench that the offence was committed on May 13th, and the conviction was on May 23rd. On May 27th, notice of appeal was given. On May 31st and June 1st, after notice of appeal had been given two letters appeared. One was written by the witness, Denis Conan Doyle, and another, which probably had more weight, was from his father, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. What he wanted to say, proceeded Mr. St. John Hutchinson, was that, at the time, the matter was sub-judice and the authorities at Eastbourne had seriously to consider wether or not proceedings should be taken as to contempt of court for writing those quite unnecessary and somewhat inaccurate letters. They came to the conclusion that as it was not likely to influence the minds of the magistrates that action need not be taken. But it ought to be known that people should understand that they should not write letters either criticising the magistrates or the police unless in full possession of the facts, and until the matter had been disposed of finally.
