Mr. D. G. A. Lowe prosecuted and Mr. Gerald Gardiner defended, a plea of not guilty being entered.

Opening the case at some length, Mr. Lowe said that on July 13th of last year there was a fatal road accident at Silverstone, a soldier being killed. A police officer going to the scene of the accident asked the defendant, who was the driver of the car involved, for his third party insurance certificate, and he produced a document which appeared to be in order and to be a certificate issued by the Road Transport and General Insurance Company. Accused did not report the accident to that company.

On August 1st, the widow of the killed soldier consulted Mr. Williams, a Chatham solicitor, who wrote to Call at Rushden, pointing out that he would be held responsible and asking him to consult his insurance company. There was no reply to that letter or to some subsequent letters, and when a writ was issued against Call no appearance was entered.

No Record
In October a letter was sent by the Road Transport and General Insurance Co. both to Rushden and to accused’s home at Swindon saying that they had no record of the certificate and asking him to fill in a claim form. No reply was received, and in November and December Inspector Valentine had interviews with Call at Rushden, and he volunteered a statement that the certificates were obtained for him by a Mr. Davis, of Worcester Park-road, Worcester Park, Surrey, and that he paid Davis £5 12s. or £5 14s.

Six months before the interview he heard that Davis had been killed in an air raid.

To Sergeant Thompson, later in December, Call made a longer statement after caution and signed it. In this he repeated that the certificate was obtained for him by Davis, who was a taxi driver on his own account, and offered to get the insurance through. Davis gave him two certificates, one for August, 1940 to February, 1941, and the other from February, 1941 to February, 1942. He tried to get in touch with Davis later on at the place where Davis had worked, and was informed that he had been killed by enemy action. He did not write to the insurance company, as Davis gave him no receipt or policy. He was satisfied now that the certificate was not a genuine one, and he was unable to prove the contrary.

Discrepancies
Mr. Lowe pointed out some discrepancies between Call’s two statements, and also that the certificate described the insured person as a farmer, which accused had never been.

Mr. Lowe further mentioned that Mrs. Davis sent news of her husband’s death to Mrs. Call shortly after the accident. The certificate bore the serial number which would have suggested that it was issued at Swansea, but it was not issued there, and the insurance company had no record of receiving any premiums from either Davis or Call.

Evidence was given by Mrs. Davis, widow of the man from whom Call claimed to have got the certificate. She said her husband was for a period about six years ago with an insurance agent of another company, but she did not know of his doing any motor insurance business or of having any association with the Road Transport and General Insurance Co.

John Williams, member of the firm of Ware, McLellan and Williams, solicitors, Chatham, said he was consulted by Mrs. Steward, widow of the victim of the Silverstone accident. He wrote several letters to the accused without getting any reply. Nor was any appearance entered when witness issued a writ.

In cross-examination accused admitted that the copies of the letters showed one to be addressed to North Hants and another to Rushton. No letters were returned through the dead letter office.

Defendant’s Story
Two assistants at the County Licensing Department proved Call’s production of the certificate when applying in July and September for Road Fund licences.

Call in the witness box said that in August, 1940, be bought a second-hand car. Previously he had used his employer’s car, but had at one time a motor cycle. In a conversation with his casual acquaintance, Davis, the latter offered to get his insurance attended to. As Davis was down on his luck, he (Call) agreed and a few days later Davis handed over his certificates (August, 1940-February, 1941, and February, 1941-February, 1942), for which he paid £5 12s. or £5 14s. He had tried to trace the first of these certificates without success. So far as he could recall, he never received either receipt or policy. Later he wanted to get in touch with Davis but learned at his place of employment that Davis had been killed in an air raid. His informant was known as Tony, and he had tried but failed to trace him. His reason for not replying to the insurance company was that he could not provide the particulars without a policy. He did not hear from his wife of Davis’ death.

Call declared that in the interview with Thompson the latter said that the penalty of forgery was up to seven years’ imprisonment and that it would help him to admit that the certificate was false.

“Carefully Planned”
Mr. Gardiner in his address urged that the prosecution had failed to establish completely that the certificate was not genuine and even if they thought it was not the jury had to be satisfied that Call knew it was not genuine.

After the jury had entered their verdict of guilty, Supt. Barker gave the accused’s career. According to his statement Call was a native of Oldham and served an apprenticeship to the sheet metal trade. He was in the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment for five years and was discharged after being injured in a motor smash. He then worked for his father in Leeds and in partnership with a brother, and had since held many jobs as a sheet metal worker. At Leeds in 1923 he was placed on probation for theft. In 1934 for dangerous driving he was fined £10 and costs and disqualified for two years; in 1936 fines were imposed for a group of motoring offences and the licence again suspended, and in connection with the Silverstone accident that led to the present charge he was fined £22 15s. and £2 15s. costs for dangerous driving.

Announcing the sentence, Mr. C. B. Marriott, K.C., said the magistrates thought it was a carefully thought out and planned fraud, done with great cunning. It was, suggested the chairman, all the worse in view of the position of responsibility that the accused held.