Cab driver fined for being drunk in street

editorial image
0
Have your say

1914 Police Court

Before Mr SN Smith (in the chair), and other magistrates at the Scarborough Police Court today Henry Boyes (52), cab driver, 68 Lower Nelson Street, was charged with having been drunk in St Thomas Street.

Defendant denied the 
offence, but PC Martin said that the man at 6.55pm was unable to take care of himself. Defendant said that he went to the police station himself, and PC Martin said that the man had been to the police 
office and he arrested him in the street.

By Mr WS Rowntree: Defendant was staggering about.

Defendant went to the police office and asked if he could see the chief constable.

Inspector Thompson said the man had gone to the office with respect to an officer who should have reported him for having been drunk in charge of a horse and cab about an hour before. Defendant was drunk, and “we could not make head nor tail of him” said witness, “so, he being unable to take care of himself, was locked up.”

PC Barmby spoke as to the man being drunk at the police office.

The Chief Constable: If your worships have any doubt I will charge him with being drunk in the police office – it is just as great an offence.

Defendant made a statement to the magistrates. He said he had been driving a cab 34 years, and had never been charged with having been drunk in charge of a horse. A policeman went to him and made enquiries, and he went to the police office to see the chief. He denied that he was drunk. Had he been drunk when in charge of the horse why was he not arrested?

A cabman named Fewster said that he employed the defendant. He saw him at 6.40pm.

Asked if he was in drink, witness said: Well, I should think he was excited.

Defendant said that the constable went to his 
employer and told him he ought to discharge him. He thought he was exceeding his duty, and went to the police 
office to report him.

Replying to the Chief Constable, the witness Fewster said that when he saw the man before six o’clock he thought he was capable of taking charge of the horse. He denied that the constable told him that if the man was allowed to have charge of the horse he would lock him up. He admitted that he (witness) did take charge of the horse. About an hour later the constable went back for the name on the 
carriage.

The Chief Constable pressed witness as to the 
condition of the defendant on the occasion of the constable’s second visit, after which defendant went to the police office, but no definite answer was forthcoming, witness stating that he thought defendant was “all right”.

There were 14 convictions against defendant, the last time in December, 1905, and the Chief Constable said that the man would have been locked up for being in charge of the horse but the constable was unable to get up with him until he got to the place where Fewster was.

The magistrates hoped defendant would not appear again for a long time. He would be fined 10s 6d, or 14 days.