Accrington on Rails - The Tramways: A Complete History - Robert Kenyon

Less advertising receipts of £260 – 19 – 0. Net amount of Common Charges = £14,349 – 9 – 5d. J. Beckett, (Borough Treasurer). It was resolved that the final settlement of this difference would again be referred to the Sub Committee. A mill labourer, Thomas Hancock of Blackburn was summonsed to appear in court accused of unlawfully avoiding payment of a tram fare on an Accrington car. The defendant claimed he had no intention of avoiding paying. Prosecuting, Mr A. H. Aitken said this was one of several instances where the corporation had found it necessary to bring an action to send out a warning to others. “It was not good enough for passengers to hold out a coin in their fingers and then to leave a car without first obtaining a ticket, and there were notices displayed within all the cars stating that it was the responsibility of the passengers to obtain a ticket before alighting”, he added. On this occasion Inspector Braithwaite was in plain clothes and was seated beside the accused, and noted that on two occasions between Oakleigh and the Market Place the conductress had asked if everyone had a ticket. After getting off Hancock had been joined by a woman who had been riding on the lower deck, and on being challenged had pleaded that he thought that she had paid his fare. However, the Inspector maintained that if this had been the case, why had he been holding a penny in his hand as though he was prepared to tender it? He also said that at no time had the conductress asked for it, but she said that on two occasions she had visited the top deck during this journey. When challenged at the Market Place he had offered then to pay the fare, and had also gone to the Tramway Office and handed over four-ha’pence, which was all that he had in his pockets. Mr Aitken said this statement was inaccurate as the Tramway Offices were closed and he had actually gone to the Parcels Office, where the clerk was confused as to what this payment was about. The Mayor in the Chair said, they were disposed to deal leniently with this case, but fined the accused 10 shillings. Hancock then shouted, “This would not have happened had she come to me!” The Clerk of the Court then reprimanded him by saying, “It is not up to them to come to you, the onus is upon you to go to them and not to attempt to sneak away”. In another case conductress Mary Ann Holden was on the 08:45 car from Church to Oswaldtwistle when she asked William Wilkinson of Trinity Street, Oswaldtwistle to show his ticket. He produced a workmen’s return which she pointed out was one which had been issued on the previous day and therefore was invalid. An argument ensued in which he claimed that the ticket had been wrongly issued to him by another conductress on a previous journey. An inspector was called and he pointed out that this could not be the case as the ticket bore the previous day’s code letter. Wilkinson was then asked to search through his pockets on leaving the car and a valid ticket was eventually found. However, at Church Police Court he was summonsed for not producing a valid ticket ‘immediately and on demand’. Prosecuting on behalf of Accrington Corporation, the Town Clerk, A. H. Aitken said, “There are so many irregularities concerning the use of workmen’s tickets the Council felt that they were forced into making a stand”. His version was that Wilkinson had offered the ticket up in such a way as to obscure the code letter denoting the day of issue, and had only produced a valid ticket after Inspector Howarth had initiated a search. Mr Booth for the defence stated, “That only recently the Corporation’s rules and regulations had been changed to include the word ‘immediately’ to them with regard to the production of tickets, and by being in possession of a valid ticket my client is guilty of a ‘technical offence’ only”. In taking this into consideration the Bench found against the accused, who was ordered only to pay the costs of the Court. In yet another case, this time held at Haslingden Magistrates’ Court, Harry Walsh, a lorry driver, was summonsed for an assault on Charles Bassett, an Accrington tram conductor. The assault occurred within the John Street tram depot of Haslingden Corporation Transport, and the Court heard that there were several businesses who kept merchandise stored within the depot, and the altercation had taken place when the conductor had attempted to swing the trolley round in order for the tram to return to Accrington. The lorry was parked beneath the wires where this procedure was carried out, and Bassett said if he was to move the vehicle he could accomplish this task more easily, to which Walsh had taken exception. The men had history as Bassett had challenged Walsh on his tram over an incorrect ticket. On that occasion Walsh had threatened to “throw him off the car”, saying that Bassett ought to be in the army. ( Bassett had been a serving soldier who had been invalided out due to injury .) Bassett had both his hands on the trolley rope when Walsh struck him a ‘vicious blow’ to the eyes

246