Second Edition. AN UNLICENSED CART.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 28, 1 October 1915, Page 6

Second Edition. AN UNLICENSED CART.

BREEZE IN S.M. COURT. BARLOW v. LAMASON. i WIN FOR THE BOROUGH INSPECTOR. A breeze was caused in the Magistrate's Court this morning, when T. .1. Lamason was charged with using an unlicensed dray tor commercial . purposes. When asked how he pleaded, defendant stated that he did not know if he was guilty or not. He did not know he had to have a license. Mr Ken rick :| Then plead "not ' . guilty." k Defendant: "1 leave'myself in your „ hands." William Barlow, borough inspector, •stated that on September 17th he asked Lamason if lie had a license for his dray; and told him that one was neces-J sary. Hearing nothing more from Lamason, he.-on September 25, took] out' a summons against him. He had given defendant ample time to procure a- license, and did not wish to be hard on. him. When speaking to witness on the street on September 17, defendant said that he did not think ' a license was necessary; also that he paid ■'about £IOO a year in auctioneer's - license and rates. "May I put a question?" asked defendant of the Magistrate. "I am taking Inspector Barlow's evidence now; your turn will come later," stated Mr Kenrick. - ■ The Borough Inspector, continuing, said that when the policeman delivered the summons to Lamason defend-] ant stated "he would smash Barlow." Defendant (disgustedly): "That is not correct." To the ?&gistrate: "1 think you will agree my word is as good as Barlow's." Defendant then ■ stated that he wanted to ask a question of the Borough Inspector, and Avheii given authority'by the Magisv: irate, he said: "Do farmers who cai;t milk to the creameries in the morn-' ing have to procure licenses 'i I am J driying my own cart, and am in thej

same .position as tliey." , 'fhe.S.M. said he could not decide that; fit was a matter for the Borough • CVnineil. ."If defendant thinks he has to liaw a,license and other-people do not;.lie, should lay it before the Council," -stud Mr Kenrick. V Defendant, in Ins evidence, stated Unit he was using his own dray, and was not aware a license was necessary. (.He was nut trying to evade the by-laws. His action was due to his. ignorance, of' the law. "Barlow acted in a very ungentlemanly maiinen >o stopping me in the streets," he continued. "He could have come to my place,of business. It was an ungentlemanly thing to proceed against me as he did." The Magistrate stated that he could' not agitfe with defendant, la his! opiuyiu the Inspector had acted fairly andis gentlemanly. "You' take up a wrong attitiAle, Jlv Liuiiason," said' Mr. Kenrick, "and 1 think the Inspector gave you plenty of time." j The Magistrate, in imposing a tine' of; 10s,. with Court, costs 7s; said that ju> summons would have been issued had defendant taken out a license he-', tween September 17th and'2sth..

Jii,leaving the Court defendant stat-: <nl that he Ivould get Counsel to defend him.' ■■The" matter will go farther than this," he finally remarked as he.was half-way to the door.