Cambridge Chronicle 20 Feb 1864: Steam engine driven during prohibited hours
Mr. William Coulson, machinist, was charged with using a steam locomotive, during prohibited hours, on the turnpike road, in the parish of Trumpington. — Mr. SANDERS, from the office of Messrs. Francis, Webster, and Riches, appeared for the Trustees of the Hauxton and Dunsbridge Turnpike-road, and Mr. GARRATT defended Coulson. — Mr. SANDERS produced the London Gazette of the 16th October, 1863, in which the Secretary of State’s order appeared prohibiting the use of steam engines on this road, except between the hours of twelve at night and six in the morning. — William Carr, toll-collector at the Hauxton Turnpike-gate, in Trumpington parish, said he knew William Coulson. On Saturday, January the 30, William Coulson’s locomotive passed through the Hauxton gate at half-past five o’clock, the driver of it being Shadrach Jacobs. The engine was propelled by steam. Had seen the engine pass through the gate on four previous occasions. Witness had told defendant of the consequences of driving the engine during the hours prohibited; and he had also cautioned his men. — Mr. James William Gosling was coming from Cambridge, on Saturday evening, the 30th ult., when, just this side of Trumpington, he saw a light, which turned out to be that of Coulson’s engine. Mr. Gosling’s horse reared and kicked, and he and his friend were in danger of being thrown out. Witness asked the driver his name: the driver was not very civil at first, but finally he gave his name - it was Shadrach something, he did not remember what. — Shadrach Jacobs was then called, and proved that he drove Mr. Coulson’s engine on Saturday, the 30th ult,. But being cautioned by the Bench that he need not answer any question likely to criminate himself he was not further questioned, —Mr. GARRATT submitted that there was no case. No person could be held answerable for a criminal offence of this kind unless it were clearly shown either that he himself used it or directly caused it to be used. The evidence went to show that he himself did not drive the engine, and it certainly did not prove that he caused it to be used. In fact he did not cause it to be used, as he was in another part of the country at the time. A master could not be held answerable for a criminal offence committed by his servant without his knowledge. Mr. SANDERS urged that the 9th Section of the Act clearly pointed out the manner of using the engine by the owner, “either in his own person or by his servants,” and that the act of the servant was the act of the master. — The Bench, however, dismissed the case.