Children of Nellie and George West

CASE DISMISSED

Sidmouth Motorist and His Motor Cycle Licences

The production of a letter from an insurance company led the Magistrates at Wonford Sessions on Tuesday to give the benefit of the doubt to George William Harry West, of 37, Sid Park-road, Sidmouth, who was summoned for riding a motor cycle on May 22nd at Exminster without having in force an insurance policy to cover third party risks.

The Clerk (Mr. F.A. Pearse) explained that defendant did not appear at the previous court, but wrote stating that he was unemployed and could not afford the fare. The policy enclosed only covered a solo motor cyclist, but it had apparently since been endorsed to cover a pillion rider.

P.C. Latham said he saw defendant riding a motor cycle with a pillion rider at Exminster, and asked him to produce his driving licence and insurance certificate. He failed to do so, but said they were in order. Witness gave him a form ordering him to produce the documents before the Sidmouth police.

P.C. Taylor (Sidmouth) said on May 23rd defendant called at the police station and produced an insurance certificate known as a covering note, commonly issued pending the arrival of the policy. Witness examined the certificate, which was dated May 4th, and noticed that it did not cover a pillion passenger. Defendant said he had sent away for another one.

Defendant told the Bench—Mr. E.C. Perry (in the chair), the Hon. Mrs. Trefusis, Mrs. Wimbush and Mr. G.T. Archer—that he renewed his insurance policy on May 4th at a Sidmouth agent's office. Witness told the agent that he would like a pillion passenger policy, and paid £1 17s 6d to include this. Witness had to sent [sic] the certificate back for the necessary endorsement.

When asked to produce the new certificate defendant said he had left it home.

P.S Crook submitted that the document was essential to the defence and should be produced.

Defendant then produced a letter from the insurance company, giving reasons for the delay in supplying a new policy.

The Chairman said in view of the letter from the company, the case would be dismissed, but the police were perfectly right in prosecuting, as defendant was not in possession of the requisite documents and did not produce them at Sidmouth. Mr. perry [sic] remarked that a summons was in the nature of a command, and if defendant had appeared at the previous Sessions much trouble might have been saved.