Derby Daily Telegraph - 7 December 1934

CAR BLAZE AT DERBY
OWNER WITHOUT AN INSURANCE POLICY
COURT SEQUEL

A fire in the Market-place, Derby, when a motor-car was destroyed, had a sequel at the Derby Borough Police Court today.
Dennis Gilbert Young (30), a racehorse trainer, of The Saracen's Head, Shirley, pleaded not guilty to using a motor-car not covered by an insurance policy.
Young was fined £2, but he was not disqualified from holding a licence.
Mr. D. G. Gilman, the Deputy Town Clerk that on October 2 a car was seen to be fire in the Market-place. A police officer immediately went to the car, but by the time he reached it there was not a great deal of the car left. It was ascertained that Young was the owner, and he went to the police station to give particulars.

COVER-NOTE PRODUCED

When Young was asked to produce a certificate of insurance he failed to do so, but produced a cover note issued on September 10 for 15 days.
Mr. Gilman said that under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and the third party risk regulation there were only two forms of insurance. One was the statutory certificate of insurance and the other was the statutory cover note. A letter from an insurance company or any other document was of no value in law, and could not be relied upon as a defence to a charge of this nature.
"It is an objectionable practice for letters purporting to show a person to be. insured to be issued in these cases," he said.
Sergeant Stark, after giving evidence in support of Mr. Gilman's opening statement, added that he saw Young again on October 13, and Young asserted that the car had been insured. Proof, he alleged, could be obtained from the insurance company.

DEFENDANT'S DUTY

Mr. A. E. H. Sevier (defending) said that, the point had been made that no certificate of insurance was produced. Mr. Young, however, was not there to answer charge of failing to produce a certificate. If the police had taken the trouble to comply with the request of the defendant and written to the insurance company, they would . . . ."
Mr. Gilman (interposing): Oh, no. That is the duty of the defendant.
David Greenwood, an official of an insurance company at Nottingham, said that on September 25 a cover note was issued in respect of the car, and that would have expired on October 9, so that the car would be insured on October 2.
Mr. Gilman said he could not accept aural evidence on matters of this sort.
Mr. Greenwood then produced a counterfoil from a book which, he said, related to the cover note.

WITNESS QUESTIONED

Mr. Gilman: " Was that cover-note issued after these, proceedings were instituted?"— Most emphatically not.
Mr. Gilman said that the counterfoil dated September 25, which was applicable to this case, was the last one in the book, yet the counterfoils before it were later dates. How did Mr. Greenwood explain that?
Mr. Greenwood: I cannot. Mr. Greenwood went on to say that this policy had been transferred from another car, and so no payment had been due for this particular cover note.