Thomas Edwin Overall

Thomas Edwin Overall was run over.

A professional motor car driver was tried for his manslaughter at the Berkshire Assizes at Reading on Saturday 4 February 1905 but acquitted on the grounds that the evidence was of a conflicting nature.

A doctor was called out to Thomas Overall's house at about 5.30pm on the evening of 4 November 1904. When he arrived he found Thomas Overall unconscious and suffering from a wound in his scalp an inch and a quarter long on the right side of the head. He noted that it didn't extend to the bone. He said that there were also two small abrasions on each knee and bleeding from his right ear.

He lived for 4½ hours, the doctor staying with him for about an hour. He died at about 10pm.

The doctor that attended him said that he didn't carry out a post mortem, but said that from his symptoms that he should say that he died from a fracture at the base of the skull, and that a fall on his head would cause the injury, and not by being struck by a motor car. He noted that it was an incised wound and the only bruise on his head was on the front and that that would not have caused his death had he not fallen down.

He noted that he could not himself carry out a post mortem without a Coroner's order.

A plan of the part of the main road from Maidenhead to Henley showing Hurley Bottom was drawn up, showing the spot where Thomas Overall was knocked over marked with a small red circle. The roadway was 15ft wide and on the north side there was a pathway 4ft wide and on the southside roadwaste of grass 15ft 6in wide. It was stated as having been 210 yards short of 5 miles from Maidenhead and just over 4 miles from Henley. It was noted that the road at the spot was practically flat and of uniform width.

The person that created the plan said that he could not say how light it would have been at 5.30pm, although other witnesses had said that it was around dusk. It was said that the road was practically level and straight within 500 yards on the Maidenhead side of the spot where Thomas Overall was knocked down.

A police sergeant based in Henley said that he later saw the motor car driver on the evening of 4 November 1904 at about 9pm with another man whilst he was making enquiries. He said that he asked them what route they took after leaving Maidenhead, and that one of them said, 'We came straight from Maidenhead'. He said that he then asked them what villages they had passed through, and that one of them replied, 'I couldn't say, as we don't know the road'. He said that he said nothing more at that time.

However, he said that he later saw the motor car driver and his friend with a superintendent later that same night and told them that there had bene an accident at Hurley, and asked them whether they had run over a boy. He said that they both denied all knowledge of any accident, saying that they knew nothing about it.

He said that they noted that they had stopped once at Maidenhead Thicket, to do something to one of the engines. They said that the friend had been driving in front from Maidenhead until they got to Maidenhead Thickett and that after that that the motor car driver drove in front all the way to Henley. It was noted that Maidenhead Thickett was on the Maidenhead side of Hurley.

The police sergeant said that he had been looking for a car with no tail light and had no number or letter to look for and that he didn't see the motor car driver and his friend arrive in Henley.

He noted that he took the numbers of their cars when they were at the Wheatsheaf in Henley, they being, A5003 and A7533, which it was noted were very much alike.

The motor car driver later gave a statement to the police on 5 November 1904. In it he said:

'Yesterday, Friday, November 4th, 1904, I left London at 3.30pm in company with my father, who was riding with me in the car. We came through Maidenhead, across the Thicket in company with another motor car, driven by a friend, No A5003. We both came along behind one another, frequently passing one another. We both stopped on Maidenhead Thicket, and I charged my battery. We both proceeded on the road to Henley, sometimes I was in front leading and sometimes my friend was. Nothing happened between the Thicket and the time we arrived at Henley, which would be about a little after 5pm, as I was not certain about the time of arrival at Henley. As to any accident which might have occurred I know nothing of it. After we had had tea we were walking through Market Street, Henley. We were stopped by the police of Henley, and questioned as to where we came from. I told them that we both came down from town, and then we went to our lodgings. After, we were both called up again by the Henley police. We are both in the employ of the Lancaster Gate Motor Garage, Lancaster Gate, Bayswater Road, London, W'.

However, it was noted that the motor car driver had not been cautioned before making his statement, but the police sergeant said that it had been a voluntary statement.

At the trial the Coroner that carried out the inquest into Thomas Overall's death on 7 November 1904 at the East Arms Inn in Hurley, said when the motor car driver was called as a witness that he wrote down what he had said. He noted that it was afterwards read over to him, but not signed by him, noting that it was overlooked. In his evidence, he denied the truth of the statement that his father had put in, which had read:

'On Friday, the 4th of November, I left London at 3.15pm in company with my son for a motor drive to Henley. We arrived at the Wheatsheaf, Henley, at 5.40. There was another motor car in front of us, driven by a friend. As we were proceeding along the road some distance beyond Maidenhead, we saw some boys in the road, and they were walking towards us, and then my son remarked to me, 'I believe I have run over a boy', and I made no reply. My son then pulled up the car in a very short distance, and made a remark to a boy that we would be back in a minute, but neither I nor my son got out of the car, and we then proceeded to Henley. At the time the car was going at a very reasonable pace. I did not think the boy was injured, or I would have stopped, got out, and taken him to a doctor, and have done everything I possibly could have done'.

The Coroner noted that it was entirely his fault that the motor car driver had not signed his evidence, noting that all the other witnesses signed theirs. Another man that had been at the inquest verified that the evidence recorded at the inquest as given by the motor car driver was correct. The Coroner said that no doubt the motor car driver would have signed it if it had bene placed before him.

The driver of the other car, a mechanical engineer that had lived at 4 Gate Street in Lincoln's Inn Fields, said:

'On the afternoon of November 4th, I was driving a motor car. We started at 3.15 from Lancaster Gate, on the way to Henley. Another man was with me. At the same time the motor car driver's car started off. He had his father with him. We came to Maidenhead together. We stopped on Maidenhead Thicket, both cars. I stopped because the other car stopped, to light up the lamps. Each car carried three lamps. The front lights were lit on the motor car driver's car, but I cannot say as to the last light. After lighting up, I started away first, and kept ahead of the motor car driver till we got to Henley, where we arrived between half-past 5 and 6 o'clock, both cars arrived together. It was the first time I had been to Hurley. I now know where the boy was knocked down, and I remember passing by the spot on the night of 4th November. Nothing attracted my attention at the spot on the 4th November'.

When he was cross-examined, he said that he had been about 2½ hours coming from London to Henley and that his car was the first in Henley. He noted that they had both been going to the Wheatsheaf Hotel and that he missed the turning to the Wheatsheaf and that the motor car driver called out after him and that he then took the turning to the Wheatsheaf and that the motor car driver followed him. He noted that he did not know whether the motor car driver's car had had a tail light when they made the turn, but said that there was one when he got into the yard and added that they had not stopped to light up in Henley.

He said that both cars were seven horse power and belonged to the same company.

A 10-year-old school boy who lived in Hurley village in a house behind the East Arms Hotel, said that on the Friday afternoon, 4 November 1904, that he had been with another friend and Tommy Overall on the main road between the East Arms Hotel and Henley at about 5.25pm.

He said that there had been two dogs fighting on the grass on the south side of the road and that when they had started fighting that he and Thomas Overall and the other friend had been on the other side of the road.

He said that two motor cars then came along, one after the other. He said that when the first one passed that Thomas Overall got into the road by the side of the path. He said that he never crossed the road, but kept near the path, looking towards Henley. He said that the dogs were running along and that Thomas Overall then turned towards Maidenhead to watch them and that the second car came along and knocked him down. He said that the right side of the front part of the car had struck Thomas Overall, noting that it had been the part of the car somewhere by the lamp that struck him.

He said that the first car was about thirty yads away, towards Henley and that it went on but that the second car stopped.

When the boy was giving his evidence at the Maidenhead County Police Court, he then started to detail the conversation that he had had with the driver of the car, which was alleged to have been the motor car driver, but the defence stopped him, contending that the driver had to be identified before the conversation could be admitted as evidence.

It was then heard that if the boy could identify the motor car driver as the driver of the second car that he could then give details of the conversation that he had had.

The boy was then asked whether he had had a conversation with the man that had been driving the second car, and he said that he had.

When he was asked how long he had spoken to the driver of the second car, he replied, 'Not very long, Sir'.

When he was asked what happened next, whether the driver had then driven off towards Henley, the boy replied, 'Yes, Sir'.

When he was asked whether he had had the opportunity of seeing the driver of the second car, the boy replied, 'Yes, Sir'.

When he was asked whether it was dark, he replied, 'Yes, sir'.

When he was asked at the police court, 'Do you see the man who was driving the second car here now? Is he (pointing to the motor car driver) the man you saw driving the second car?', the boy replied, 'He is not the man'. When he was asked whether he had been taken to Henley the day after the accident and asked to identify the driver in an identification parade and had failed to pick out the motor car driver as the driver of the second car, the boy replied, 'Yes, Sir'.

When he was then asked his opinion then, at the police court, on whether the motor car driver had been the driver of the second car, the boy again said that he was not the man.

When the boy was questioned about the incident, he said that they had been watching the dogs fighting on the grass on the other side of the road and that Thomas Overall had been on his side, off the path, and walking backwards, looking at the dogs. He said that he called out to Thomas Overall not to cross the road and that Thomas Overall stopped and turned round and that the car knocked him down.

He said that the car never run him over, but struck him and that he rolled backwards into the hedge.

When the boy was asked whether the driver had been a young man or an old men, the boy said that he had been a young man. When he was asked whether the other man that had been with the driver had been an old man, the boy said that he had been. He said that neither of the men got out of the car, but that the driver had spoken to him.

The other boy, a 9-year-old boy that had lived in a cottage behind the East Arms Hotel in Hurley, said that he had been with Thomas Overall and the 10-year-old boy, on the afternoon of 4 November 1904. He said that he and the 10-year-old boy had been on one side of the road and that Thomas Overall had been on the other side and that two motor cars came along, the first going past and the second striking Thomas Overall as he was running across the road towards them.

He said that they had called out to him and that when the motor car struck him that Thomas Overall fell against him and knocked him into the hedge. He said that he then ran home.

He said that there had been two men in the second car, but that he didn't have the opportunity of seeing their faces.

He said that as he was running home that the man in the car spoke to him and that he went back to where Thomas Overall was. He said that no one got out of the car and that the car only stopped for a second or two.

When he was asked whether it was very dark, he said that it was.

When he was asked whether the second car had had a tail-light, the 9-year-old boy said that it had had two lights in front but no light behind.

The 9-year-old boy's father, a farm labourer, said that he had been coming along the road from Henley towards the East Arms Hotel at about 5.30pm on the evening of 4 November 1904 when a motor car passed him at a tremendous speed, about 50 yards from where Thomas Overall had been knocked down and that about forty yards behind that came a second car, which was not going very fast, but which was going from one side of the road to the other.

He said that he heard someone in the second car say that he would be back in a minute, but didn't know then who he had spoken to. He said that about fifteen yards further on that he saw his boy, and a little further on he saw Thomas Overall lying down with his head towards Henley and with a cut on his head.

He said that no horn had been blown by either car and that it was dark, but not very dark, although he could not recognise the faces in the cars as they passed. However, he noted that if the cars had stopped still that it was light enough for a person to have seen their faces then.

The 9-year-old boy's mother said that from her cottage that she could see down the road to the spot where Thomas Overall was knocked over, which was about 90 yards away. She said that she had been outside her cottage on 4 November 1904 at about 5.30pm, at the east end of the cottage, when she saw two cars coming along from the direction of Maidenhead, one behind the other. She said that the first car passed her house at a rather fast pace, but that she had seen cars go faster, and that she saw the second car stop at the corner where Thomas Overall was knocked down.

She said that the car stopped there for quite a minute. She said that it was going first on one side of the road and then on the other, as if uncertain which way to go, but that it went on to Henley. She said that after the car stopped that it had driven off, zigzagging from one side of the road to the other. She said that it had been about dusk at the time and that she had not seen the accident and only heard about it later.

She noted that there were no other cars that passed her house. She noted that at the time that the cars passed that she had been taking in clothes at the side of her cottage and that if other cars had passed that she would have seen them.

She said that the second car had had two lights at the front.

At the police court the defence stated that the Treasury had made out no case against the motor car driver, stating that he had been charged, not because there had been reckless or careless driving, but because of the verdict passed by the Coroner's jury, and noted that coroner’s juries were liable to be influenced by local feeling, and that because of the sad death of Thomas Overall, which they all very much regretted, that it was felt that someone had to be served up as a sacrifice, and so the Coroner's jury had sent the motor car driver up for his trial for manslaughter. However, he added that he thought, that when the magistrates considered the case with a judicial mind, that they would come to the conclusion that there was no case to answer.

The defence noted that there was no evidence of identity and that there was no evidence that the motor car driver had knocked Thomas Overall down. The defence noted that several witnesses had stated that the car that had hit Thomas Overall had had no tail lights on whilst the driver of the first car had stated that the second car had had a tail light when it arrived at the courtyard of the Wheatsheaf. The defence stated that all the evidence went to prove that the motor car driver had not been the driver of the car that caused the accident.

However, the defence added, that even if the motor car driver had been the driver that had knocked Thomas Overall down, that who was to say that there had been negligent and careless driving? He then stated that Thomas Overall had walked backwards into the car and that there was no evidence to state that the car had been going at other than a moderate speed.

The defence concluded that there was no evidence of identification, or of reckless driving or culpable negligence, and asked the magistrate to say that there was no case to send for trial.

The magistrates then retired to consult in private, and after a prolonged absence, returned to the court and said that they considered that there was no prima facie case and dismissed the case.

However, the motor car driver was still to be tried for manslaughter on the Coroner's warrant at the following Berkshire Assizes.

However, when the case was heard at the Berkshire Assizes the motor car driver was acquitted, it being noted that the evidence was of a conflicting nature.

The motor car driver had pleaded not guilty.

At the trial his father, who was the proprietor of the Swan Hotel in Lancaster gate, said that during the journey to Henley, whilst they were between Maidenhead Thicket and Henley, that his son said to him, 'I believe I have run over something'. He said that he saw a boy in the road and two on the pathway and that after making the observation that his son pulled up the car in a very short distance, but that neither of them got out. He said that they then proceeded to Henley, reaching it about 5.30pm or 5.45pm.

He noted that in November 1904 that his son had been ill and under the doctor's hands and that he suffered very much from his nerves. He said that the day after they arrived in Henley that the doctor gave him some medicine for his head. He noted that his son was in the habit of saying, 'Granted' or 'Yes', when asked questions, and that it was probable that he had replied in that way when questioned about the accident by the police.

He also noted that the car had been in the habit of jumping when travelling along the road and that his son often jokingly made use of the observation that he had run over something.

He noted that he himself did not see the car run over anything.

When the motor car driver again gave evidence at the assizes, he said his car had had a tail lamp that had been lighted at Maidenhead and had been still burning when he reached Henley and that he did not stop between Maidenhead Thicket and Henley and that he did not knock a child down, to his knowledge. He said that it was not until between twelve and one o'clock the following morning, when he was 'knocked up' by the police, that he heard of the occurrence.

When he was questioned, he said that he remembered seeing some children on the pathway between Maidenhead and Henley, and said that he might have said to his father that he had run over something. He added that he did not think that they had travelled faster than 13 miles an hour during the journey.

When the defence addressed the jury, they highlighted the discrepancies in the evidence, and contended that in the remark the motor car driver had made to his father about running something over, he could not have been referring to the death of Thomas Overall, because he was not run over, but knocked down. The defence further noted that before manslaughter could be proved that the motor car driver would have to be shown to have been driving with gross negligence. They then noted that the magistrates had dismissed the case, and that it was only their on the Coroner's inquisition.

When the judge summed up, he noted that there was no doubt that motor cars were to a large extent used for useful purposes, but that a certain number, a small fraction, he hoped and believed, of those who enjoyed them, pursued their pleasure in a most selfish way and added that those men brought discredit upon a large body who would disdain such practices. He said that juries ought to be very careful not to be prejudiced by the actions, not of the bulk of motorists, but of those who were selfish enough to think that because they blew their horns they could run over people. He then said that juries ought to be cautioned in cases of that kind to deal with them on the evidence alone.

After an absence of half-an-hour, the jury returned and asked whether the motor car driver had been wearing a mask on the journey to Henley, and several witnesses were recalled, all of them corroborating the statement that the motor car driver had had nothing on his face at the time.

The jury then intimated that their verdict was one of not guilty.

The judge then said that he thought that it was a perfectly proper verdict, stating that under the circumstances that he didn't think that any other could have been given.

After the motor car driver was acquitted, the judge said that the case showed the necessity of something being done in order that motor cars could be more quickly identified.