資料：1924年5月28日《The Hong Kong Telegraph》第7頁
BUS DRIVERS’ TRIAL.
TO-DAY’S EVIDENCE.
The trial of the two motor bus drivers, Li Kam and Lo Shang, who are charged with manslaughter, was continued at the Criminal Sessions this morning.
The Attorney General, Hon. Mr. J.H.Kamp, K.C., conducted the case for the Crown and Mr. Campbell Prosser defended. Prisoners were the drivers of motor buses which collided on a bridge near Castle Peak on April 4th, and as a result of the collision four passengers were killed and many others injured. The prosecution alleged that prisoners were guilty of negligence.
Kong Kan-chuen, a school-master, recalled, told Mr. Prosser this morning that when he sighted the approaching car they were each about 100 yards from the different ends of the bridge. When the bus he was in was 20 yards away the approaching one was a similar distance from the bridge.
The manager of the Bus Company said he personally examined both vehicles involved in the collision on the morning of the accident. The brakes were in order when examined afterwards it must have been due to the collision. He took the buses up the hill leading to Laichikok and tested their brakes on the return journey.
Sergeant Stimson, replying to Mr. Prosser, gave it as his opinion that, considering the extent of the damage and the position of the buses, they must have been doing about 35 miles per hour.
Mr. James Smith, acting mechanical engineer of the Kowloon-Canton Railway, deposed to examining the two buses at 6.15 p.m. He described the damage to each bus and went on to say that the foot brakes were out of order and would not act no matter how far the pedal was pushed, and the hand brake although in order did not appear to have been used.
Mr. Prosser, in cross-examination, suggested that no man walking the streets of Hongkong, or anywhere in this world, outside a lunatic asylum, would go out without having either the foot brake or hand brake in working order.
Mr. Smith: And yet they do.
In reply to further questions, witness said the car could be stopped without brakes by using the engine as a brake. He took an hour and a quarter over his examination. There was no damage to the chassis as far as he could see.
Questioned by His Lordship, witness said that it was decidedly not a sign of good driving when in a tight corner to rely on the foot brake alone, even had it been in working order. The hand brake should be equally as efficient as the foot brake.
THE DEFENCE.
Lo Shang, driver of No.1204, went into the box and said he first sighted the other bus a little over 40 yards away. He was slightly nearer the bridge than the other car. As he continued he noticed that they looked like meeting on the bridge, and he slowed down. The collision occurred just as the front of the car passed the bridge and it occurred, he said, because the oncoming car swerved towards him. He considered he had the right of way. The accident would never have happened had he (witness) not slowed down. He used his footbrake only that day because it was sufficiently strong to stop the car. It was strong in the morning, but gradually got weaker. At his last stop before the bridge he pulled the car up in six yards.
Later witness admitted that he used his hand brake several times during the day, though only when he wished to stop the car altogether.
The case is proceeding.
翻譯：
巴士司機審訊
是日證據
巴士司機利金(Li Kam)及羅生(Lo Shang)因被控誤殺罪，於今日早上出席刑事訴訟庭接受審訊。
官方代表是尊敬的律政司金培源先生 KC御用大律師 (Mr. J.H.Kemp)，辯護方是保羅瑟先生(Mr. Campbell Prosser)。被告是4月4日於青山附近橋面導致巴士相撞的司機，控方指被告於事件中涉嫌疏忽，導致4人死亡及多人受傷。
學校教師江近泉(Kong Kan-chuen)作供，向保羅瑟先生指出當他看到對頭車輛時，兩車位置皆與橋面相距100碼。當他乘坐的車輛駛至距離橋面20碼時，對頭車亦與橋面距離相若。
巴士公司經理作供，指事發當日早上，他曾為兩台涉事巴士進行測試，當時所有制動系統運作正常。於事後發現的制動系統失靈應該是對撞所造成。他曾把巴士駛往荔枝角(Laichikok)的山上，並於回程時測試制動系統。
史汀生沙展(Sergeant Stimson)於回應保羅瑟先生的提問時，表示根據兩車的損毀程度，以及兩車相撞後的位置，推斷兩車車速可能達時速35英里。
九廣鐵路署理機械工程師史密夫先生(Mr. James Smith)，於事發當日晚上6時15分抵達現場驗車，結果顯示兩車腳掣均已失靈，相關腳踏怎樣按都沒有反應，而手掣則沒有任何使用的痕跡。
保羅瑟先生於盤問時，表示香港的街道，以至整個世界，瘋人院以外的地方，都不會有人把腳掣與手掣皆失靈的車駛出外面。
史密夫先生：「但他們卻這樣做了。」
在回應進一步的提問時，證人表示車輛其實可以在不使用制動系統下，透過引擎剎停車輛，他曾以1小時15分鐘進行過實驗，結果亦證實不會損壞車輛底盤。
在回應法官的提問時，證人表示在緊急情況時只以腳掣剎車並非良好駕駛表現，就算腳掣運作良好亦不應如此，手掣與腳掣均應合理地適當使用。
被告作供
羅生(Lo Shang)，即1204號巴士司機，走上證人席作供，指他早於相距40碼時已注意到對頭車輛，他當時比對頭車更靠近橋面。但當繼續前進時，他認為兩車有可能於橋上相撞，於是他減慢了車速。最後車輛部份駛離橋面時就發生了對撞，當時對頭車輛正進行迴避動作，他認為他有路面優先通行權，如當時沒有減速，意外可能可以避免。被告當日駕駛時只使用了腳掣，因當日的腳掣剎車反應很強，於早上很強，隨後逐漸減弱。在意外發生前最後駛經的巴士站，他用了6碼距離剎停車輛。
後來被告亦承認他曾使用了手掣幾次，只在車輛完全停定時使用。
案件審訊待續。