Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 27 January 1882

Alleged Contravention of the Canal Bye-Laws by a Kilnhurst Boatman

Alexander Rice, boatman, of Kilnhurst, was summoned for committing a breach of the canal bye-laws.

Mr. Rhodes appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr. Barras defended.

The case having been brought on, Mr. Barras desired an adjournment, he not having had sufficient time to prepare his case. He thought no objection would be raised to this course, the complainants being a rich company. (Laughter.)

The Chairman: Are you prepared to pay the expenses?

Mr. Barras: I am content to leave that question with your worships.

Mr. Rhodes, referring to the remark that the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company was a rich company, said perhaps Mr. Barras knew more about the internal affairs of the company than he personally did; he probably knew that a good dividend would be declared next year. (Laughter.)

He reminded their worships that one of the offences complained of being that the defendant had allowed a boat to lay sunk in a navigable portion of the canal, there was danger lest an accident would happen.

Mr. Barras said the boat in question had been removed from the canal.

If Mr. Rhodes desired it, he would give him an undertaking that the defendant should do nothing during the adjournment.

Mr. Rhodes: That is just what I want.

Mr. Barras: I have only had about twenty minutes to know what the defendant was about.

Mr. Rhodes asked to know who were the witnesses that his friend desired to call, and the defendant stated that they were James Davey, William Baxter, and John Durdy.

Mr. Rhodes remarked that the defendant had received verbal warning repeatedly about continuing the offences complained of.

The magistrates consented to the case being adjourned for a week.

Mr. Rhodes reminded the defendant that he would be held answerable for any damage that might occur in the navigable portion of the canal where his boat had sunk.