資料：1924年5月28日《Hong Kong Daily Press》第5頁
THE UN LUNG MOTOR BUS COLLISION.
TWO DRIVERS INDICTED FOR MANSLAUGHTER.
The sequel to the Un Lung motor-bus collision, when four passengers were killed and several others injured on April 6th, was heard at the Criminal Sessions yesterday when the drivers of the two colliding buses were indicted for manslaughter.
The case was heard before the acting Chief Justice and a Jury. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. J.H.Kemp, K.C.) conducted the case for the Crown, whilst Mr. Campbell Prosser represented the prisoners.
The Attorney-General opened the case by stating that manslaughter was a crime which varied very much. Some cases of manslaughter were little short of murder, sometimes light sentences were imposed and in other cases sentences of 20 years were ordered. Some cases were slightly more than accidents, such as errors of judgement. In this case it was the Jury’s duty to say whether the deceased’s death (the name of only one of those killed in the collision being mentioned in the indictment) was due to the culpable negligence of the prisoners at the bar. His submission would be that both prisoners were guilty of manslaughter.
The Attorney-General went on to say that the collision took place on a bridge in the New Territories. He contended that both drivers should have taken care not to approach the bridge, which was a narrow one, unless they had made sure that they would not meet on the bridge. The road on either side of the bridge was perfectly level and there was a clear view of 600 yards to the north of the bridges and for 600 yards to the south of the bridge.
CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE.
Photographs of the bridge and plans of the road were placed before the Court and the Attorney-General said that in explaining the photographs a constable on patrol duty arrived on the scene of the collision shortly after the collision and, as the buses were blocking the road, he had them moved. On the following day they were moved back into their original positions in order that the photographs might be taken.
The buses approached each other from opposition directions and taking the case of bus No. 1204, which was driven by the first prisoner, the Attorney-General said that this bus was travelling South from Un Lung to Tsim Sha Tsui. The driver was on probation, he was licensed in November of last year. The bus left Un Lung at 2.10 p.m. At Ping Shan it was stopped by Sergt. Stimson who ordered several excess passengers off the bus. Unfortunately, none of the witnesses from this bus noticed that a collision was imminent. The conductor was busy collecting fares and the passengers were talking. They could not give any idea as to the speed of the vehicle. The only idea of speed could be gained from the time it took the bus to travel from Un Lung at 2.10 p.m. to the bridge at 2.30 p.m. which, after allowing for a stop of five minutes at Ping Shan, showed that the speed was not excessive, it worked out at about 16 miles per hour, “but I do say this,” emphasised the Attorney-General, “that he should never have gone on to the bridge until he was quite sure there was no risk of the other bus being on the bridge at the same time. This was an act of culpable negligence.”
THE LAST TRIP.
It had been stated that as this was the last trip of that bus for the day and the driver would be a hurry to finish; but in view of what he had told the Jury as to speed, the Attorney-General asked them to take no notice of the statement. The effect of the collision was that the chassis of this bus was torn away and that the front left wheel was torn off. The back wheels were intact. When the bus was examined later two surprising facts were discovered. The hand brake, which was in working order, was not on, whilst the footbrake was out of order in so much that it required adjusting. It could have been workable at the time of the accident.
Dealing with bus No. 1314, the Attorney-General said that this bus was driven by the second prisoner, who was on probation and who had held a license to drive since last September. Six witnesses would be called to give evidence from this bus, and nearly all these, including another bus driver who was a passenger, estimated the speed at about 20 miles per hour, though they could not say what the speed was at the time of the collision. The handbrake of this bus was found, on examination after the collision, not to have been on, though it was in good working order. The footbrake was entirely out of order.
The Attorney-General contended that both drivers were neglected in not having the footbrakes adjusted.
Evidence was then called.
Scoutmaster Kong deposed that he was riding in the bus going towards Ping Shan when he saw the other bus. They were about 200 yards distant. Both vehicles were travelling very fast and the collision took place near the South end of the bridge.
Witness, in reply to his Lordship, give it as his opinion that the collision was due to the speed and distriction of the attention of the driver. Amplifying this statement, witness said there was a girl in the bus and the driver was speaking to her. To do so he had to turn his head to the left. He was not in a position to say whether the driver’s head was turned at the moment.
Cross-examined by Mr. Prosser witness estimated the speed to be 30 miles per hour and did not consider that he had over estimated it.
The case was adjourned until this morning.
The Jurors empanelled for the case were: Messrs. Chan Tue Teng, J.Waid, F.J.da Luz, J.M. da Luz, H.P.Warschkell, A.Martin, and F.X.Silvn.
翻譯：
元朗巴士對撞
兩車司機被控誤殺
就4月6日於元朗(Un Lung)發生的巴士對撞造成四名乘客死亡及多人受傷事件，昨日於刑事訴訟庭進行聆訊，兩名涉事司機均被控告誤殺罪。
案件由署理正臬司審理，設有陪審團，官方代表為律政司(尊敬的金培源先生 KC御用大律師 (Mr. J.H.Kemp))，辯護律師為保羅瑟先生(Mr. Campbell Prosser)。
律政司作開庭陳詞，指誤殺是一種罪行，差別亦可以很大，有些誤殺案件基本接近謀殺，有時會作出輕判，亦曾判處20年徒刑。有些誤殺案件則偏向意外，例如判斷失誤。在這宗案件，陪審團有責任來判斷死者的死因(起訴書只列出了一位死者的名字)是否因為在席被告們的嚴重疏忽所造成。他認為兩人皆犯了誤殺罪。
律政司續指案件發生於新界的一道橋上，橋面狹窄，司機們理應於確認兩車會否於橋面相遇前，先行停車觀察。橋面與兩邊路面沒有高度誤差，南北兩方亦各有600碼清晰視野。
不可免責的疏忽
橋樑的照片以及道路圖則均被呈堂，律政司介紹照片時，表示事發後不久，有巡警抵達現場指揮交通。因涉事巴士事發後阻塞了交通，巡警就把巴士移開了，並於翌日搬回原位以拍攝照片。
涉事巴士行走相反路線。1204號巴士由首被告駕駛，由元朗南行前往尖沙咀。司機嘗在試用期，其執照於去年11月取得。當時巴士於下午2時10分由元朗出發，並於屏山因車輛超載而被史汀生沙展(Sergt. Stimson)截停。不幸地，所有這台巴士的證人都沒有注意到意外將會發生，售票員正忙於收取車資，乘客們則在交談。他們不知道當時車速有多快，唯一可以估算車速的資料是車輛於下午2時10分由元朗出發，至下午2時30分於橋上發生意外，再加上屏山停車5分鐘，估算車速不算太快，大約是時速16英里。「但我要說的是」，律政司強調，「他不應該在未確保兩車會否在橋上相撞前繼續上橋，這已屬嚴重疏忽。」
最後班次
據悉當時是該車的最後班次，而司機亦急不及待完成工作，但當向陪審團提到車速後，律政司則表示相關證詞可不作理會。車輛對撞造成這台巴士的底盤脫離，左前輪脫下，後輪則完好無缺。當進行驗車後有兩個驚人發現，運作正常的手掣沒被使用；腳掣失靈需要調整，亦有可能於意外前尚能運作。
至於另一台巴士，即1314號，律政司表示車輛由次被告駕駛，亦在試用期，牌照於去年9月取得。這台巴士將有6名乘客作供，差不多所有證人，包括一名當時為乘客的巴士司機，皆估計車速達時速20英里以上，唯事發當下的車速則無人知道。事發驗車後，發現手掣運作正常卻未被使用，腳掣則已失靈。
律政司認為兩名司機都因為沒有調整腳掣而涉及疏忽。
證人隨後上庭。
童軍領袖江先生作供表示他當時正乘坐前往屏山的巴士，當注意到對頭巴士時兩車相距約200碼，兩車當時車速很快，意外發生於橋樑南邊路段。
當回應法官的提問時，證人個人認為意外事件因車速過快及司機分心所致。證人表示當時有一名女孩與司機對話，如要進行對話，司機應會望向左方。證人亦補說他當時坐的位置看不到司機有否望向左方。
在保羅瑟先生進行盤問時，證人估算當時車速可能達時速30英里，並且認為自己沒有誇大車速。
案件押後至今早再審。
獲選為陪審團的人士包括：陳住丁先生(Mr. Chan Tue Teng)、瓦特先生(Mr. J.Waid)、達盧斯先生(Mr. F.J.da Luz)、達盧斯先生(Mr. J.M. da Luz)、沃舍爾先生(Mr. H.P.Warschkell)、馬田先生(Mr. A.Martin)、施勳先生(Mr. F.X.Silvn)。